Yes, the article you refer to is simply self praise and...

Yes, the article you refer to is simply self praise and promotion by KM for the debt for equity swap they were able to facilitate when MBN were first in receivership in 2013. It enabled MBN to remain listed, avoid liquidation and recommence trading in 2014.

The restructure did not lead to ".... shareholders been taken to the cleaners twice."

It did not even lead to shareholders being taken to the cleaners once.

It actually prevented them being taken to the cleaners at all.

Shareholders from before the first DOCA in 2014 were able to continue with ownership of MBN - as a listed, trading and operating entity - once the restructure of debt had occurred.

Where do you see there is a way to hold KM with their innovative debt restructure for MBN in 2013/4 responsible for MBN's liquidation in 2015?

A devaluation in MBN's assets wasn't the cause of its suspension in 2015. It was it's ability to service its debts. This was caused by a drop in sales quantities and prices (in line with the fall in the price of Nickel)


To be clear what "stinks" is that FH found in 2016 that MBN had always been "net asset deficient" since Dec 2013 - this being despite the rosy pictures otherwise painted within each of the operational (and noticeably non financial) updates and teleconferences in the first half of 2015.


And we can't do anything about it because - and here with the benefit of hindsight - it can be demonstrated that we were otherwise sufficiently warned of the material uncertainty and doubts raised of MBN being a going concern by both MBN Directors and KPMG
Refer pages 45, 55 and 56 of MBN's 2014 Annual Report (eventually issued as late as 27th March 2015)...
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20150327/pdf/42xk15ntrpwwqq.pdf


Trust this helps. LP