Lollll
This is the key. "Discussions"
GMC's due diligence was based on "discussions"
Surely after you sign a binding agreement that someone renegs on, due diligence entails more than "discussions"
I had no idea about the fate of GMC yet I was able to correctly predict the outcome.
Surely the base case was Pak was all talk, surely any reasonable person would conduct additional due diligence before accepting any counter offer in lieu of another investor????
It is smacking us now in the face that GMC have run out of cash and will most likely require a capital raising (partially to pay for mgmts salary).
Just think how ridiculous that sounds.
If management think this project has any value why don't they accept a full script salary on the same terms as the capital raise.
Separately why did they make those full time appointments in the absence of certain funding.
I'm still on holiday (return on Sunday).
The ASX and ASIC will be getting quite the reply!!!
PS
@joemas, on holiday I've learnt its not worth your time explaining to those that simply wish to argue. We've been right all along for a reason. If they are in denial, why argue...let them learn the hard way.
The only ones I'm after now are the personnel that somehow managed to spend 1m AUD with nothing to show plus the ones that appointed full time personnel in the absence of funding.
Depending on the number of unanswered emails, I'll have a response to ASX by next week which I'll share on here (for the benefit of those that I don't ignore)
