I don't see appointment of receivers as being a complete...

I don't see appointment of receivers as being a complete negative or necessarily an "end" of the company.

From the announcement:
"The Receivers were not appointed to any of BUD’s operating subsidiaries, as listed in Schedule 1 (“Subsidiaries”, and together with BUD, the “Group”), which are the primary operating entities within the Group. PFG has indicated it does not presently intend to take any enforcement action against the Subsidiaries.
In addition, PFG has provided BUD with a limited funding facility to allow the Group to continue to trade in the short term during the receivership period. It is the Receivers’ intention to draw down against this facility as and when required and to provide those funds to the Subsidiaries so that day-to-day obligations can be met at that level."

Furthermore,
"The Receivers will shortly commence a process seeking offers for a sale or recapitalisation of the Group (“Transaction Process”)."

I believe that Receivership is probably our best hope to get the company out of the hands of the management that drove it into the ground, and potentially into a position, via sale of the group, into the hands of smart forward thinkers who can move the company forward again.

It may not work out that way, but at least it is a possibility. Way better to be in the hands of receivers, than the hands of liquidators.

I have a considerable holding of BUD shares, so I do have a vested interest in the company and in the discussion surrounding it. I'm a bit astonished to read so many posts suggesting that this is the complete and utter end. Maybe not! Chin up! This could be one of the best things that's happened to BUD in a while.