Ann: December 2020 - Half Year Accounts, page-16

Firstly $1m is 0.1% of $1 Billion.

However I take your point to be that when compared to a really large abitrary figure the sum Directors repaid themselves days before Receivership (and many months since they had sought safe harbour from insolvent trading) is miniscule. A rounding error as you put it.

From another perspective, your million dollar example (the combined repayment of Directors loans that week was higher) is around 11x the median annual household income in Australia.

One has to wonder how certain trade creditors would feel upon reading that information. They were not just NRW types.

I understand that this is a share discussion forum and the focus is on that angle, but I do feel for trade creditors that were willing to back the company at their own expense and continue to provide products and services. It could be argued that they too were providing a form of unsecured interest free loan.

The way the BOD is portrayed by some as extremely benevolent figures that got screwed over or blindsided, doesn't quite match seeing them repay themselves (as unsecured creditors) in excess of $1m within a week of Receivers being appointed, instead of the exceedingly supportive and faithful trade creditors.

If the BOD was so confident a deal had been accepted by LNH, why not pay down the overdue outstandings to those unrelated parties that had kept the operation running?

Even if they had written expiry or repayment dates on their loans for those dates, why did they choose to pay that debt over others? I think the answer is patently obvious.

It is looking quite possible that the ones to lose the most will be those super supportive unsecured creditors. With all the focus on the secured LNH and potential personal losses as investors, this group rarely gets a mention.

Given current hype around the Li industry it is possible to see a scenario whereby the shareholders come out ahead of those cents on the dollar trade creditors.

Even if people are to question the circumstances of the collapse and if it was fair, surely everyone is on the same page that Shareholders and their representatives the BOD should be last in line?

I fail to see how a poster raising the question re suspicious / fortuitous / coincidental / really really lucky timing of repayments by the BOD to 3 members of the BOD is an attempt at vicious defamation.