i believe i understand yesterday's announcemnt

I believe the BusinessSpectator has it right, as to why yestday's announcement was made. Indeed, it explains why we are in trading halt.

The "Media World" case, in Australia, has sent shivers through the banking community. This case was a test of whether equity holders could, in certain circumstances, become a company creditor (basically, in pursuit of damages for misrepresentation).

The ranking of this debt cannot be above debt holders. However, ALL CREDITORS GET TO VOTE AT THE CREDITOR MEETING. This is the key point, the creditor meeting determines who conducts the administration of the receivership. THE CREDITOR MEETING IS THE KEY TO ULTIMATE CONTROL OF THE WINDUP.

The BNB board, in negotiations is being forced, by the banking syndicate, to prevent shared and subordinated notes traded currently from being able to argue a case citing the Media World precedent.

THAT IS WHY BOTH ORDINARY AND SUBORDINATED NOTE HOLDERS ARE ADVISED THAT THERE IS ZERO VALUE. (To let the banks off the hook, in the event of receivership).

Please note the following extract from:

http://www.findlaw.com.au/article/13172.htm

Non-binding comments in Media World

Justice Finkelstein was asked to address the hypothetical question of whether a shareholder who purchases shares of a company on the open market (a transferee) on the basis of an alleged misrepresentation by the company could, in bringing a claim for damages against the company for misrepresentation, have the status of a creditor of the company in the administration.

Justice Finkelstein stated that the reasoning in Houldsworth 's case did not easily fit the situation of a transferee shareholder. He referred approvingly to the UK House of Lords' case of Soden (1997), which involved a court-approved scheme of arrangement for a company in administration under which the company's assets were to be distributed on the same basis as a winding up. Soden was decided on the basis of specific UK legislation in the context of a winding up that a transferee might be able to make a claim in damages and rank as a creditor on the basis that the transferee's claim for misrepresentation relating to the share purchase is not of the same character as a claim of a subscriber and may not be barred in the same manner. However, the side observations made by Justice Finkelstein were brief and given without the benefit of opposing argument on the point.