Several occasions the report says "This is incorrect". Then goes on to say it is correct but not at the magnitude stated by Glaucus.
Or... it says a point is incorrect but their rebuttal is some legalistic spin. For instance, we don't receive our management fees upfront, they are paid upfront but disbursed over time. The fees are still paid by the investor upfront which makes the example egregious. Not the sequence of payment irrelevant.
This response asks more questions than it answers IMO.
One thing of note, this response was made to read along with the Chanticleer article given the ASIC slant, so the delay didn't help.
