asic reference: false and misleading statement

This thread picks up on LAND VALUE issue raised in #3383232.

Predicated on the belief that a URL Director has stated that URL's land holdings are worth $60M to $90M then:

* why is this value NOT reflected in URL's financial assets accordingly?

* was the alleged statement made to instill a false sense of security? and to convey that in a "worst case" scenario that shareholders would get back say $65M (after allowance for Administration and selling costs)?

If true, then this scenario returns roughly 13c/share back to shareholders after provisioning for Notes Conversion.

This matter, inter alia, shall in due course be referred to ASIC for investigation.

Get READY TO GO!