Ann: Trading Halt, page-46

Really, is that what they have been saying? The technique of spinning non-binding undertakings as something firm that enhances, buttresses or in this case de-risks is one of the oldest tricks around. That should have been spotted long ago and sounds like trouble all round.

Had a look at the announcement around resignation. That also looks shonky. It is inconceivable that a Board would not in ordinary circumstances know why an exec had resigned. The only time this would occur is when the exec refused to give a reason. This may be true in this case which means the exec is likely aware of what he is leaving behind even if he doesn't say so. Equally likely is that the Board and exec know fine well why he is leaving and agreed in early discussions not to formally canvas that reason so that the type of explanation provided could be spun with apparent integrity. Either way it looks like trouble.

Not here to gloat, learned my lessons with SO4, but do like to learn.