Allowing the Note to convert below the floor, (via 15% capacity)...

Allowing the Note to convert below the floor, (via 15% capacity) would seem an open invitation (without a halt to seek remedy) to a default dinner as i understand it. And implosion of the SP thereafter was the consequence.

The company says many things. Didnt expect the note holder to dump?. If you give the fox the keys to the chicken pen, can you trust the fox, to just sit there at the gate ?

The CR was to close yesterday, and we have not heard yet of the take up, or if it may very well be extended.
IMO if they want to re-instate some level of trust, they need to answer the former questions on transparency, and stop hiding behind blaming the note holder. Or a legal claim against them.

The old story of the scorpion on the frog. But why did you sting me, now we both drown ? - because it is in my nature.

Who appointed the note holder.?
Who designed the default terms?
Who provided the collateral shares. And with what understanding ?
Why a halt was not called, the very moment that it was possible that we were under the note floor price, could Vwap our way into a default. ? We even had an ann to say that there was a placement of the note under the floor price. !!
Why there was an expectation that the note holder would operate as a boy scout ? etc,
Will the shortfall be placed to anyone to is a connected party to either the note holder, or whoever arranged the note holder ? / or who put in place the terms of the default. ?

Other, The reality would seem that there is an unkown quantum of the size and date of return of Arb and equip, in lou of other claims against it, which is why we have reverted to the retail market for funds. That is something we learnt from the webinar.

Transparency, where for art thou? When i was buying on market at 0.9c/ 0.8c / 0.6c ?