I don’t disagree with the insolvency comment, and will say I...

I don’t disagree with the insolvency comment, and will say I have plenty of experience in terms of directors requirements/obligations and dealing with fixing things!

what I will say is CRs need a clear reason and purpose. Fixing or preventing insolvency should never be one of those…this is literally what management have been doing in the last 3+ years…using funding to prop up the business and pave the way for serious largesse and papering over extremely financial/cost/risk management. Does the company truly need those funds to stay solvent? My guess is as good as yours, but my opinion from what basic info I’m seeing is no, and that this will only either a) delay the inevitable or b) provide cover to continue to enable past poor practises.

the way I see it, with current cash in bank, appropriate and efficient cost take out (2M done easily and I’m sure more can be done without any large detrimental effect to the company), much improved CF/WC management, noting that a lot of investment should and appears to have already gone into the new model/s (if suggested launch is only 1-2Qs out), and Q2 receipts still to come in and the debt restructure, SPA is finally ticking better boxes….the company is better positioned to organically sustain itself and grow in a better way than it has been for years.

high risk - 100%

needing more equity funding to survive - I’m not convinced