IVideogate. In the intervening period something has changed. The...

IVideogate. In the intervening period something has changed. The question is what.

and this is conjecture also

The most likely facts are NH accepted or thought he was accepting, and, as AVB made the video they also accepted. Maybe one party or the other was involved in a subterfuge but I doubt it.

Something else went down and I'm sure we would all like to know what it was.

In trying to work it out I look at the hard core evidence. The facts as I see them are that;

AVB share price was under pretty much constant pressure since March 2017 regardless of the outstanding successes of AVB on the ground.

Blackrock were involved in a campaign of share selling throughout much of that period.

Historically some of the private equity holders had voted against the board.

Now back to conjecture.

What was the effect of Blackrock selling?
Conjecture on my part but when you keep mentioning 'manipulation' most will think you are talking about share price and share price only. Maybe you are. I'd suggest if there was manipulation it was not of the share price but of the company itself. Now I have no hard evidence for that but a lot of the circumstantial evidence points that way IMO. So it's just a theory.

You could also look at who worked for AVB and what their connections were. There were staff members that IMO kept making rookie mistakes in their roles. Were they accidental/naive or intentional? Once again circumstantial. However, they certainly didn't help the share price or market perception of AVB. What was the impact of that?

Any lawyer who looked at this would quickly ascertain the above but their next question would be where is the evidence. That need for evidence would apply for a toothless tiger regulatory body (massively under funded) who as far as I can see rarely brings about a financial compensation for victims, just fines that go into government coffers in the rare instances they are successful, or, any lawyer working in say a class action for the benefit of share holders.

We can hypothesise here, we may be on the money, we may not, but EVIDENCE is required for anything beyond venting our emotional displeasure at what we see as a blatant ripoff.