Managed to sell out @3.06 soon after the opening. Have booked a...

Managed to sell out @3.06 soon after the opening. Have booked a loss, and learned a lot during this very interesting experience. Feeling much lighter, and will gladly forget this company. I can only wish management and remaining shareholders, good luck. In spite of how things have worked out, I still believe that the quality of G's research was poor, so that they did not have a sufficient basis to support their 'opinions', which were well distributed and targeted at Australians, who were the predominant holders of shares. Even in the U S of A, which enshrines in its Constitution, the right to free speech, there are limits - you are not allowed to scream 'fire', in a crowded cinema, when there is no fire. IMO, this is effectively what G did with regards to BLA, and it has been very effective, and no doubt profitable for G and other short sellers, a number of whom no doubt conspired with G, to make this short even more effective. A large negative reaction to BLA by the market is not a new phenomenon - this is how the market works - it often overshoots in both directions - and asks questions later.Was there weakness in BLA's disclosure? Yes, but before G, the market, including institutional investors, were comfortable enough with this - the company was a growth company, it was delivering results, and was on an upward trajectory to continue to do so. The G report has largely undone this - it essentially accused BLA of false reporting, misleading and deceptive conduct, breach of directors duties, and the list goes on. Under these circumstances, where the intangible assets are attacked - largely based on the intellectual capital of the executives who run BLA, and there ability to identify investments, manage them, and attract capital from investors, what choice does 'mr market' have, other than to react severely. Added to all of this, I genuinely believe that BLA executives, including the former CEO, Rob Shand were always acting honestly and with integrity. Unfortunately, the questionable legality of the G report I think threw the executives - they underestimated the potential impact of the G report, with all of the doubt that it would throw on BLA's disclosure, and focused on simply reacting to the G report. They needed to change the conversation, and to do more, as it was always doubtful that G would ever be held accountable for its apparently 'unlawful' conduct - it's not regulated in either the U.S. or Australia, and so the only way to hold G accountable would be to take civil action, which is costly, and takes time, especially with appellate review. G has not only exploited a weakness in BLA's disclosure, but has also exploited a weakness in U.S., Australian, and International securities regulation. G are not heroes, who protect investors, they are simply opportunistic investors, who have probably at least breached Australia's market manipulation and misleading and deceptive conduct laws. However, it is unlikely, under the circumstances of G being in the U.S. that ASIC will take action to prosecute, the result of which is, this conduct is condoned, the integrity of the market is impaired, and it remains open for G, or any other overseas, unregulated party to pretty much do what they like!