Ann: Notice of Annual General Meeting/Proxy Form, page-25

Yes it all seems rather improbable.

The company has 12 months or so to sort this out. They could still manage it.
The company has of course, stopped trading then resurfaced once before under a different trading name. It's not impossible this could happen again, leaving shareholders with basically nothing. Nobody seems to want to think about it but it's a material risk.

As for whether there is any causal link whatsoever between Matt Sanderson joining the Board and the shift to commercialisation a day either side, surely there is none.

If he had any losses he can comfort himself with remuneration.

I find it bewildering that people imagine that from eyeballing someone and receiving warm reassurances and civility those people are any more trustworthy than the next person. What I realised from the eyeballing and the personal warmth is you cannot trust it.

I voted for Sanderson when I thought there was a chance he'd do something useful and potentially be a stabilising influence. I don't think there is much evidence he has done either, but the fate of the company doesn't rest with him. He's only marginally more weight in the saddle. But not anything like a Mark Bouris or a Richard Martin who really did deserve to go IMO.

The only thing that keeps me a holder is the technology and that the Board keeps stumbling along in the general direction of commercialisation.

How they got there is not something anyone wants to speculate more broadly on, but IMO it has zero to do with Sanderson.