When you analyze the history of the company it does reflect...

When you analyze the history of the company it does reflect significant shareholder dissent both against the stubborn strident major shareholder (removal from office some 2 years ago would have been carried on a 1 vote to every shareholder & 91% wanted to toss her off) and the recent vote to wind up would have been carried on a similar basis by 88%. This figure would have been higher because Leanne C and her stooge solicitor accounted for all bar circa 27,000 shares said to be owned by some 11 others! More stooges, I’d suggest.
For mine this is oppression of the minority on a grand scale. Throw in a sale of the main or only reason shareholders invested (the successful operating company) and we are left with a junk investment box with a horrible track record + a pile of cash from the sale of biz. In short this is a company with no future - at least a future which has been well constructed and explained.

The Board is despised for its incompetence and clear kow-towing to the main shareholder who is equally despised. The battle by LCE is justifiable and should be supported but we retail shareholders. Let’s take the fight up to these bullies.

There are only 3 options - status quo, where we retail SH will be put on a Spartan dividend diet and forced to sell through sheer exhaustion or we win a winding up order or LC places a TO offer in front of us. I’d accept $3.90 to walk the plank and PO, provided its expedient.
The only reason I can think of he attitude is a capital gains or other tax reason. Otherwise, why hang on where she is thoroughly despised.
PS I’d love to get Justice Lee on this case - he called Lehrmann’s BS and I think he’d do likewise with LC.