Ann: Opyl receives non-binding offer for its Opin business, page-7

This Opyl divestment deal announced on Friday evening is contentious. It raises questions:

. Conflict of interest: Dr Hugo Stephenson is consulting to Opyl...and consulting to himself, or at least to his newly formed company, Trial Screen. How can he reconcile his dual interests?

. Independent valuation: Where there are conflicting interests, it would seem sensible - even imperative - that Opyl arrange for a credible independent valuation of the Opin operation and then release this so that shareholders are fully informed before the proposed general meeting.

. Trial Screen structure/management: How did Opyl decide that a 20% stake in Trial Screen is appropriate?  Why not some other figure, eg 50%?  Will Opyl have Trial Screen board representation?  If so, how many directors?  If not, why not?

. Personnel: Who will be transferring from Opyl to Trial Screen?  Former Opyls CEO Michelle Gallagher?

. Opin performance: In the recent past Opyl has been parading the performance and prospects of Opin - including winning a $282k contract with Medtryx. Now, in Friday's announcement, it claims the operation was losing (net cash outflow) $60k a month. Is it still losing at this rate? Why would Dr Stephenson - or anyone else - want to buy it?

. Non-binding: Why is Dr Stephenson's proposal "Non-binding"?  Is this to allow either party to call the deal off? Or is it a way of signalling to other potential buyers that they have a crack?

All in all, this novel deal is going to challenge Opyl investors. I trust the upcoming Notice of Meeting will provide clarity...and an independent valuation.