I think Defabs is great don't get me wrong, but gee guys the...

I think Defabs is great don't get me wrong, but gee guys the issuance of CATS to shareholders not previously exposed to the litigation in the merger didn't give you a hint that the company saw CER shareholders at least part liable? Also, in the court case it became apparent that CER through its merger with Centro America was at least a key player in the 'hide the debt sausage' game. Additionally, Centro's change of RE backfired -- big time. CRF may have dodged liability through the RE but PwC had asked that if the court supported that move (as the Corporations Act allows) then the court must then allow the directors and executives to be found personally liable. Good news, right? Wrong. It would have turned Centro into a corporate pariah and would have most likely led to people of the calibre of Bob Edgar walking away from the company. But back to my first point -- CER shareholders weren't issued CATs for a reason. If you disagreed with that reason at the time you had a chance to vote on it. But the majority of you guys cheered the merger (after it was rejigged late in the game, not before) as a good deal. I guess the $$ in your eyes blinded you to the risk to you as shareholders that were defined by the company in the merger as "previously exposed to the litigation".