Disclosure first - I am a long term holder of a significant...

Disclosure first - I am a long term holder of a significant parcel of shares.
Like most posters on here I am very angry at the lies we were told in the early days but they are now past and we need to look to the future. It is difficult to know what the land, buildings and machinery are worth but I believe whatever this brings will most probably be what is left in the company at closure. I think any funds the litigation brings will go to the lawyers as Frank and company will keep this going long enough to make sure it does (and remember the law is basically an ass when it comes to these types of cases).

I am more interested to see who gets access to the tech - we have seen this work and the ponds can be dispensed with with the addition of one more piece of machinery. Although it is not patented (and I understand by the nature of the process it would be difficult if not impossible to secure a patent) I still believe it is valuable and could be used with the right backing. They claim it is not cost effective - how long will toxic waste be allowed? I think the writing is on the wall in the US and Europe and it could be enacted in the next couple of years and it will then be very cost effective

Whilst I don't disagree that we should be looking for another business to put into the shell I believe we should be very aware of what we have and make sure that someone does not 'steal' the tech and use it. This needs to be clarified by the Board when the plant is closed down.
Anyway just my 2 cents worth.