Ann: Updated Notice of Requisition for EGM, page-62

I agree that the large numbers involved and public nature of the arbitration and dispute probably helps us a bit. However, we really don't know the legal strategy of the Vendor and how well he has protected his assets, and/or if he has effectively distanced himself from the Windsor and Galaxy, and what impact this will have on the outcome.

What we do know is, the Star Vegas suffered a big drop in VIP turnover after the Vendor left, where did that junket business go? We also know that the Winsor (Star Paradise) continued to operate and that it was owned by the Vendor at the time. We also know that a very large new casino, Galaxy, has been built on the Vendor's parcel of land, and apparently from memory (although I can't find the announcement at this time) even if this was not linked to the Vendor, it is still a breach of the non-compete clause as he is prevented from using the land for gaming purposes.

It is hard to believe that DNA would not achieve some compensation for this situation. However, it's also hard to believe the vendor has large transparent assets sitting in Singapore waiting for a potential judgement. I know the proceedings are confidential, but it's interesting the the company has not even eluded to having any other assets frozen, other than the shares, and this is telling. I think, as others have also said, assuming that his shares are cancelled and the management fee disappears as a liability is a good bet as to the effective result of the arbitration.

Quick note on the 'bull case', the Star Vegas EBITDA number is fanciful. I think A30m to a stretch of A40m is more realistic. Here is my take on on a bull case.

A35m for DSV
A18m for Aristo
-8 corporate costs

EBITDA multiple of 6 = 270m
-8.6 net debt
A261.4m value

At 823.6m shares 32c per share
At 675.3m shares 39c per share (Vendors shares cancelled)