I think your memory may be just a little hazy my friend. There's no 'E' in WTG if that's what you may be suggesting
Public offerings for speculative companies wishing to list on the ASX are not particularly attractive to Australian investors these days, and reverse takeovers provide a number of benefits including but not limited to a decent spread of unrelated shareholders, which is usually required to be somewhere in the vicinity of 300-400 - this is quite difficult to acheive in an illiquid market through an IPO, as opposed to a back door entry through a shell listing.
I've been invested in only two ASX listed companies over the past 2+ years. Both of them were 'back door' listed through the ASX, and both have seen sustained share price appreciation which probably places them among some of the top ASX performers over the same period, and like DIR the largest of these two holdings had absolutely nothing in common with its colorful predecessor, yet 10 years on, people are still getting the two confused.
I can't tell you why the company have yet to request the suspension to be lifted, but to the best of my knowledge there are no outstanding compliancy issues with the ASX, so I can only assume that the decision to commence trading again will be at the descretion of the board
What I can tell you is that the science behind DIR's technology is robust, and they have been garnering interest for it from some pretty serious players, however what initially captured my attention was the citing of a senior research manager from one of the two companies that I am currently invested working in collaboration with researchers from Teck Resources and the CSIRO.
On 15/10/2013 in this post wriglet posted the following;
No major changes necessary. Minimizing aqueous nickel and/or sulfuric acid concentration and/or increasing organic polarity can overcome this problem.
DIR Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Unspecified
