Footie, I think you may have missed the point the learner made...

Footie, I think you may have missed the point the learner made about you being naive about your assertion that the board was being naïve signing a deal with VC.

My interpretation of his view is that if the board was not naive, then the board must have willingly signed a BS deal with VC that they knew would never be honoured. Whether that in fact was the case or not, it is obviously what the learner believes. Not sure how he has come to that view exactly? But if he is correct then there really would be an issue. Personally I think it is worthy of an investigation by ASIC because binding a virtually non existent company to a $40 mil deal requires substantive due diligence to ensure that there is adequate wherewithal to perform on the agreement as intended. What was MGC's discovery process!

BTW a binding agreement is as legal as a formal contract. It binds the parties to the agreement together to meet all the obligations under that agreement.