TTHA couple of thoughts:1) You may find that the 30% shareholder...

TTH

A couple of thoughts:

1) You may find that the 30% shareholder in FER was very influential in putting the PLT / FER merger together from that side of the fence. This was certainly hinted at by another poster in that (largley scurrilous) post that was reposted here from another board a couple of times. If that was the case, the FER Board may never have been hugely unified regarding the deal, but agreed to effectively "wait and see" pending the findings of the expert. This is speculation on my part.

2) PLT does NOT have a right to pull out of the deal based on the FER directors recommending against. On some readings, PLT may have the right to pull out based on some other condition having been breached, I don't know.

3) re timing of access to data. My GUESS would be that this deal started off entirely amicable and that PLT fully lifted the skirt re provided data while the whole thing was very amicable. That would take you through at least to 17 April when the deal announced. At some point after that date, but before the date when the IER was released (on essentially the last possible day for release, give or take 24 hours or so) things would have become a lot less amicable. IER reports like that one don't just land on your desk in finished form. Drafts, possibly with some key bits blacked out, would have been circulated to FER and PLT in the weeks leading up to release for "factual review". NOte that Lonergan Edwards can prepare that sort of report in 2- 3 weeks, therefore the report could have been sitting on the shelf in "almost final" form for quite some time. It could well be that PLT decided not to give further data after the tone of the deal changed. Unless they could convince the expert that new info had emerged (recievables received!! or firm sales made) that would change the expert's tone, then there was no upside to PLT in revealing further information after things turned sour.

You are being very generous in your timeframes in suggesting that PLT has 6 months to get its act together. The IER seems to think that PLT needs to raise money a great deal sooner than that!

We shall see. However, if you were a PLT director yesterday was a key day. Until yesterday PLT directors would have had a reasonable expectation that there solvency position would be protected by teh FER merger.

Now - no reasonable expectation of an FER deal would exist. Therefore, personal liability to the directors would apply to all new debts incurred as of yesterday.

We know what the balance sheet looked and smelt like at end March. Unless they have traded profitably since, the situation is only getting worse.

That's all.

Red