@Inchiquin@ShortblackI think both of you are right to large degrees.
There is definetely a lot of shadiness to the former management and its links to current management. Given those links it is suspicious how the current management appears to have just given up on the business (regardless of its viability)
It appears to me that there was major fraud in connection with Chinese operations. What type of fraud remains to be seen. Maybe previous management was simply blowing hot air into the balloon, maybe there were some shady deals to enrich previous management.
Either way it looks like the regulatory agencies got too close to the truth which triggered panic mode and the wind up plans. Current management appear to be cleaning up the trail in an orderly way to legimitise all dealings and throw the agencies off the trail. The purpose of the wind up is to legitimise decisions (through shareholder ratification of asset sale transaction) and to keep control over evidence relating to fraud. Once the company is wound up regulatory agencies would have to deal with the same people (now former directors).
The barrier to winding up is legal action against the company. That is the only real leverage for shareholders. The issue with that is that attached to the legal action is another set of blood suckers - lawyers.
What I think will happen is this:
Current management will be trying to sweeten the deal for shareholder payout in various forms.
Class action lawyers will be upping the ante to earn more fees and preventing the settlement.
Former management will be using its connections in the legal industry to try and shut it down.
In the end the pie will be divided between the management (former and current) and the lawyers.
Shareholders will get a 1c consolation prize.
AFP and regulatory agencies will close the probe once it gets too complicated and with too many dead ends.
What I think should happen:
1. Shareholders initiate pre-discovery procedure in court to obtain documents from the company in relation to the past 6 months, putting current directors on notice for breach of duty.
2. Shareholders reject ratification of any asset sale proposals unless it's above 20c per share.
3. The combination of the two above should keep regulatory probes open and wrongdoers on the hook until they choose to stump up a reasonable amount of compensation, which they can do by purchasing the main IP at whatever price shareholders "nominate".
Fraudsters never fully clean up, their biggest mistake is usually releasing too much information tgat contradicts itself and that should be the vector of attack on them.
Could make a great episode for Charlie Pickering's weekly lol
(20min delay)