So -- by its own admission Conyers Dill and Pearmans admission...

So -- by its own admission Conyers Dill and Pearmans admission the Nkwe board sanctioned a loan to an entity controlled by directors of Nkwe at the time who held a stake of at least 37% interest. They consciously omitted the fact that the family entity controlled by Andeli Nkhulu at the time singularly controlled another 26.5% of Genorah. In criminally (section 1309 corporations act) trying to misguide the ASX (as typified by this casual act of also 'forgetting' the Nkhulu interest) and minorities by attempting to interpret whether the word director under section 96 is a singular or plural term, the board is continuing its systematic strategy of not owning up to its mistakes and attempting to utilise any possible loophole to dodge its responsibilities. Whether the term director is a singular of pleural word is clarified under section 2 of Bermuda companies act;"Wherever in this Act an obligation or duty is placed on a company or a company is authorised to do any act, then unless it is otherwise provided such obligation, duty or act may be carried out by the directors of the company, or by the director of the company, where the affairs of the company are managed by only one director" -- so if only one of the above directors were on the board and running the company their argument would have any merit under legal and common sense terms. And it is for any judge to see through it

I can see it that as previously discussed by me there are more than one ground for court cases to be taken against Nkwe in Australian courts

Delisting is not a threat-- it means under minority oppression rules a fair value will have to be calculated through a mutually acceptable valuer