darcy7 Yes, good point. I had wondered why GCN announced the...

darcy7

Yes, good point. I had wondered why GCN announced the bleeding but anciently obvious.

Speculation only on my part but I guess the liquidator rootles around to find any cash or assets lurking around. Where better to look than at a succession of schemes that, through the years, promised millions to shareholders. These schemes were also used to claim to the ASX that the company's future was bright and it would not be trading while insolvent. Then a scheme becomes unmentioned and a new fantasy takes it place.

Liquidator: What's this FirstMongolian thing?

GCN: Umm. . . . it is no longer going ahead.

Liquidator: When did you tell this to the ASX?

GCN: Er . . . . we haven't yet..

Liquidator: Well, I suggest you do so - immediately.


So if we are correct, expect many such statements in the immediate future.

On a related matter, GCN told the ASX that it was asking the liquidator to put GCN into administration and not into liquidation. Why on earth would the liquidator agree to this? Over 14 years GCN's finances have steadily worsened, with its revenue reduced to zero for the last two quarters.

What's different now? And the liquidator's constraint is to maximise the cash he distributes to creditors, not risk losing any remaining resources by letting GCN trade on and lose more..

A builder, put into administration, might well be able to trade its way back into business. But GCN? I can't see it.