There is more than one trigger point to insolvancy. Your definition as stated above is the most simplistic definition and not wholistic. Its a publically listed company here not a one man plumbing operation. AS i have said in the past this company has a relience between book and legal insolvancy definition. If WPG had liquid assets such as term deposits then negative working capital would be not be so bad. They just dont have this. Plant such as the mill is not a liquid asset. It cant be easily sold therefore can be used justification for negative capital and for audit purpose.
Agree with you re Pybar but really thats only a fraction we are talking about. It is also whats at dispute as Pybar are clearly saying its due. It is my opinion that WPG are disputing this mainly to draw the payment out as they simply cant pay it. Whether WPG are right or wrong delayment of payment is more important than any figure it may end up being.
WPG are not in a position to get a bank guarantee as well. As for credit raising they would need to put this against a project. It would be wrong to raise credit for working capital the securities commission could take a view that they should have working capital run the project for any CR not the other way round.
