I can't agree that the financing was proceeding normally. It was...

I can't agree that the financing was proceeding normally. It was far from normal. They announced the initial loan facility which was a litmus test for profitability given that a loan condition was that they were profitable enough to pay it back. Then there was a (highly suspicious) delay. Then came the bridging loan ann back on 1st July 2015.

• Up to AUD$3.5 million in bridge financing made available while remaining conditions precedent for the Initial Syndicated Finance Facility (Initial Facility) are satisfied.

That is clearly saying that the bridging loan is not conditional on showing profitability.
Three months on (5th October) they talk about a first draw down of up to US$20m is expected under Initial Facility but then go on to say that they are using a bridging loan. That is again saying they have not demonstrated profitability. That ann was designed to head off doubts about profitability but it didn't convince as normal procedure, in the time available they should have been able to secure the initial loan facility without needing bridging finance. Demonstrating profitability is not a process that should have taken months. Then they increased their bridging loan still without securing the initial finance, i.e. yet again they couldn't show profitability. The initial loan facility story was time sensitive and the clock was still ticking. The bridging finance was not a get out of jail card for the company. Ultimately they were never able to demonstrate profitability to get the initial loan facility and of course share holders were the last to be told that directly. I can see why they felt they had to maintain investor confidence but ASX continuous disclosure rules were very likely breached.
Just my opinion DYOR.