plld, in proposing the above 'either/or' scenario on the part of...

plld, in proposing the above 'either/or' scenario on the part of the MRV directors, you wrote:

"Either the directors in accordance with their directors duties (care & diligence) surrendered the company into the hands of the administrators to avoid trading the company insolvent (even though funds available there must be a means by which it can be repaid) ..."

With the available funding the company could have taken the final remaining steps toward moving the MRV Metals Granite Belt Project into its much-vaunted production phase and repaid the funds through its earnings .

" ... or acted criminally and entered into a scheme to defeat creditors and shareholders ..."

I gather that in your opinion the MRV directors chose one or other of these options.

Moreover, given your insider knowledge of ASIC's culture of non-enforcement of its powers, you are saying that in the event of choosing the criminal option, the directors would have been well aware in advance that they were exposed to next to no risk of ever facing prosecution for their criminal deed. Absent then any kind of moral restraint on their behaviour (I'm not suggesting this was actually the case), the directors would have had little to no incentive not to take the course that maximised their own personal gain whilst shifting the cost to the company's defenceless and defeated creditors and shareholders. Right?