Ann: Approval for Listing on the NSX, page-6

Also Cornelius seems to have implied to Gberra, based on his post, that these indemnities are in some way tied to retaining a public listing which could mean that they are required to maintain a net asset backing minimum. These conditions that Gberra mentioned seem to give the impression that they could be enforceable, hence the rush to the NSX as they have no project for the ASX requirements. These terms should be clearly stated in the transaction agreements. For DNK: Given the apparent $30M indemnity tied to its listed status and likely net asset backing requirement to protect the buyer (SRBG) against future tax or project-related liabilities, of any other indemnity provision, DNK's failure to maintain a sufficient public listing or asset backing could according to Gberra's conversation with Cornelius breach the indemnity terms, triggering claims and further eroding shareholder value. This in my opinion further underscores the apparent materiality of the $30M indemnity and the need for transparent disclosure to shareholders.