Ann: Quarterly Activities Report, page-46

It never ceases to amaze me how people buy into stock and have absolutely no clue

Seriously, if you cannot understand quarterly reports don't go shooting your mouth in a public forum, especially in such a defamatory manner

It clear as day states they raised $792,000 from sophs at 1c




For those who can't read an annual report, the debt as at 30 June 2014 was $1.1M



So they have paid out $1.9M in debt, of which only an additional $800k has been added since 30 June 2014, over 7 months ago

Now for those of you who can't put 1 and 1 together try this. The sophs who said they participated in the raise in December at 1c were likely the ones who contributed the $792,00 cash in order to take control of the shell, and also appointed Peter. The additional stock issued in that 200M block was likely the payment of the additional debt, along with a few fees and what not to the deal maker to get things rolling

If you add up last quarters cash on hand, add in the sophs raise in December then take off the various expenses, it all works out exactly

Hence why I said I imagine most of the dumping was from the party who lost control of the shell, and along with those additional creditors - this now stacks up, especially going by the broker data

So the only 2 things unanswered from the quarterly is:-

- what makes up the $800k of additional debt. However, if you do the numbers on quarterly spend, the restructuring costs etc, it really isn't that much to worry about. What people should note is that it wasn't Peter or the incoming parties who laiden the balance sheet with the additional debt. Unfortunately, we don't get month to month breakdowns, but I somehow don't think it was run up by the "new guys" since December

- the admin expense. Quarterly burn is only usually $150-200k, so I highly suspect that a $400-500k deposit, fee or option has been expensed for this incoming asset as part of the deal. i.e we will tip in $X into the company, clean the balance sheet and alleviate debt, but $X must be set aside for acquisition.

And as to your bogus claim Shift a poster got stock for free, he actually said "next next next next next to free", meaning he paid 0.5c - he was joking

Seems to me the only thing "fishy" is some people's ability to A) read an annual report, B) read a quarterly cashflow and C) read an appendix 3B

So DUO now has no debt, new controlling parties, sophs who confirmed to have stumped up $792k at 1c and what looks like new management on the way

And for those with the, "the only have $56K cash, however will they raise more" line of thought. They had $86k as at last quarterly dated 30 September 2014, some 3 months later in December they managed to raise $792k from sophs at 1c when the price was 0.8c - shouldn't have to spell it out, some people like what they saw

Let's see how many times over the weekend and next week people completely get this wrong and shoot their mouths as so many already have