I lold @ your comment Steve - upset at people posting silly...

I lold @ your comment Steve - upset at people posting silly comments with no evidence to back them up, and then following with these two items of classic conjecture:

"There are several interested parties in getting on board, and its very obvious that this would not be the case unless there was "something there" with this company."

1. Not obvious
2. "something there" doesn't necessarily mean something there for the shareholders.

"There are no injunctions on the mines etc. Otherwise why would these informed investors etc., chose to get on board."

1. It doesn't follow that there are no injunctions because someone is considering investing.
2. It's concerning that there are investors who are more fully informed than shareholders?

I'm not a negative person, and obviously there is some chance of ETH recovering, but you've got to admit that ETH's recent track record isn't looking too good. El Capo hit the nail on the head when he he said he's yet to see an administrator being appointed as positive. I would go a step further and say that although appointment of a voluntary adminstrator could be positive, it would only be in exceptional circumstances (sudden restructure, passing away of senior management, etc.). An administrator appointed after months of suspension by a company with no money or income producing assets is not good.