Why would they sell the aristo and distribute that in the current ownership structure? Surely it would be smarter for the Vendor if DNA 'explored various opportunities' again for capital, but ultimately have the Vendor underwrite the next capital raising.
You keep making these assumptions about buy backs, asset sales or premium takeovers, yet name any actions by the new board that have benefitted public shareholders?
Remember earlier this year you talked about loans, asset sales, refinances. Did you once mention a deeply discounted raising underwriten by the vendor, resulting in virtual control of the company for peanuts?
