Ann: Explanatory Statement and Expert Report, page-28

It's interesting that the Administrators purport at tender the report as expert evidence (at paragraph 1.8 therefore Administrators are offering their own evidence as expert witnesses who are bound by the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses (which is set out at Appendix 9).

Now, call me old fashioned, but I don't believe an expert witness can perform their overriding duty to the Court when the are not only the applicant in the proceeding - but also financially interested in the outcome of the proceeding.

Further, I note that the Administrators refer to technical expert reports (Deloitte and SRK at paragraph 1.4) but I can't seem to find Deloitte or SRK's statement as to Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses. Perhaps this will be in the court application documents.

Very interesting - if I was SGX, or ASX, or the Court, I could probably be swayed to either require better evidence or give less weight to the opinion of the Administrators. If there was a contrary report giving A40 value it could be very compelling evidence with that in mind.

At the end of the day - Korda as Administrators have been involved before and during the insolvency of A40, they have set the agenda, been billing for every last activity, they made substantive decisions about A40, and now they ask the Court to rely on their expert evidence as substantive proof that A40 shares have no value.

Could be an interesting hearing to hear this issue, inter alia.