Giddy while it is populist, on here, to look at only the most...

Giddy while it is populist, on here, to look at only the most recent events of the Company and look to divert the blame to those who are what could be seen as an easy target being ASOF. Rather than look at some events in isolation it is important if you are really serious in looking at what went wrong, why it went wrong and more importantly who was responsible for what went wrong you have to move back to pre and post ASOF.

It was the Directors who put the Company into Administration after the collapse, for unspecified reasons, of the last capital raising, not ASOF.

It was the Directors that oversaw and endorsed all the aborted and ill advised funding schemes, resulting in continuous cash flow problems, prior to and after 2006, not ASOF.

It was the Directors who oversaw the diminution of the share price from over $3 per share, over an extended period, to it’s current share price, not ASOF.

It was the Directors who oversaw the net worth of the Company fall to it’s current value, not ASOF.

It was the Directors who raised large loan accounts without having the cash flow to repay the principal, not ASOF.

It was the Directors who informed Shareholders and Authorities that it had to rely on conversion of notes as the only way of paying the debt, not ASOF.

It was the Directors who had to rely on capital raisings to pay the interest on the notes since 2006, not ASOF.

One of the Directors was paid by both MST and the vendor note holder, yet he was able to recommend the transfer of the notes to Shareholders, without claiming a conflict of interest, ASOF did make any recommendation or threat on this as they were not officers of the Company.

It was the Directors that recommended approval of the original Notes to Harmony, and the new notes to ASOF, to the Shareholders, with a lower conversion factor of 90% of the last traded price, not ASOF.

It was the Directors that elected not to tell the Shareholders the reason for the issue of default notices by ASOF not ASOF.

It was the Directors on behalf of the Shareholder’s, and with no consultation with the Shareholders, not only paid the legal fees but also relieved ASOF of any further financial requirements under the agreement. One has to wonder if these concessions were in lieu of an admission of default.

It was the Directors who advised Shareholders that it constantly needed to raise a further $10/15m to commercialise the products despite losing some $100 m plus, not ASOF.

It was the Directors who continually advised that the Company was under threat of administration, if it did not continually raise capital, and if Shareholders did not approve note issues, and participate in capital raisings, not ASOF.

It was the Directors who recommended approval of the Luxinvest note issued despite the Corporate Advisors stating that it was a bad deal for Shareholders.

It was the Directors who continued to draw director’s fees up until Administration, while the Company made no dividend payments or bonuses to Shareholders since floating, not ASOF.

It was the Directors who continued to operate the Company, whilst not directing the resources to add to Shareholder’s worth and overseeing the failure to commercialise the Company’s products despite increasing debt levels up to and after 2006, not ASOF.

It was the Directors who ran the Company were responsible for the day to day operation of the Company, not ASOF.

It was the Directors that elected to make the last interest payment, while neglecting other creditors such as staff etc, and leaving the company cash poor, not ASOF.

Finally it was the Shareholders who approved all proposals put forward, and all supported by the Directors not ASOF.

Giddy, while ASOF may have been in some part responsible for the collapse of MST, there are many other factors that also contributed and, so it is time, unpleasant as it may be, to recognise this. Personally, as with most company failures, I lay the blame primarily at the Directors.