trigger notice announcement out..., page-24

Just wonder if Larkin is getting a better deal from the banks than he did being ceo of bnb ?Seems to me that would be a huge conflict of all holders intrest if he did .Is he obligated now to reveal this ? We had a company that was in trouble but could meet its commitments if they were not called in .Calling them in still means they can meet there commitments but under a different charter.Banks are wanting to gain from all holders not just note holders out of this .Pay as you can intrest is just hogwash to make people think they are struggling when its quite possible they are not .The economy will turn and so will bnb under whatever guise it is .The banks have crueled the chances of the company with there 20%.Does the company stand to survive better without share holders .No dividends says yes the banks want this and all they can get they have taken the risk in lending because they had shareholders now they want it the other way?Note holders maybe able to make them think otherwise somehow im not sure but i sure as hell hope for all holders in companies that there ceos act in there best intrest to me this does not seem the case now as a noteholder i have to place my trust in a fair outcome .I thought this is what the ceo did got a fair out come .I feel as much as any invester when they see poor decisions made by there ceos .I just cant get that one percent holding out of my mind why would the executive keep one percent?What happens to bnb holders if the company is delisted do they still own part of the company?