Ann: Appointment of Voluntary Administrators, page-46

My experience tells me beware of wolfs in sheeps clothing.

The company supporting is probably the one who lent forward against r&d claim. This may possibly be to ensure time passes for lodgement and return of claim for example rather than in the pot with all other creditors? As cred were also involved in Northern http://www.yieldreport.com.au/news/asymmetric-notes-to-pay-8/ Whatever the spin in announcements say there will be jockeying for position underlying any move and protecting their prior advice and due diligence IMO. There is many layers to short term debt instruments employed and who the holders are and who is representing them. Look at the ranking of various types of debt.. That may simply to give themselves time to finance something or to delay past contractual points etc - trust me it is all self serving IMO . The way things are financed and lack of offtake agreements to guarantee that finance meant funding was adhoc and more expensive in a industry where margins at critical points in start up are small and high risk..

Announcement with no value attributed to it? I thought ASX was stopping this style of hollow announcement. How much and for how long and what conditions have been placed on any $ forwarded? If there isn't a "please explain" something is up IMO.

Look there is possible value in real world wave data sets that have been physically acquired if the right data points have been used and correct format and quality of data done. That value is decreasing as time goes on and other models with data from elsewhere get created and new computing power and AI is applied at various levels. What $ value can be attributed to this data and IP is a unknown. It could save another company many $ by ruling out ( with data proof) various concepts and factors in design . Delays of years in CETO and lack of published data at every level have allowed other technology to develop and fill a space that CETO may have been viable in. If data on efficiency and output was published ( and it was good) many other start ups may never have been funded if they didn't exceed or show potential to exceed those numbers but CWE and CCE kept putting out fluff pieces refusing to address costs of ownership and cost per MW at any scale.. No ASX announcements including data that they should have been proud of as a " world leader "??? Only press was driven by them and not scientific or peer reviewed and no industry comparison be it ? The change from internally developed technology to modular externally developed equipment should have been a large red flag to investors as it indicates that there was cheaper and / or more efficient or CCE couldn't create what they needed so had to adapt others equipment resulting in reliance on external parties. There is a million decisions that shareholders may not ever find answers to but the results are obvious. The greenwash evangilists drawing longbow conclusions blinding others by flooding discussions killed any opportunity for realistic discussion and comparison that may have highlighted seriousness of issues earlier .

Beware the echo chamber