goodaye Uniflower - mate you have far more historical knowledge...

goodaye Uniflower - mate you have far more historical knowledge of UNS than I do.
But what astounded me over 12mths ago, and I made numerous posts to same effect, was that after they dumped Shortall, UNS failed to provide THE most basic of information to s/h and to the market.
So Unilife was listed on ASX and Nasdaq.
I am no lawyer, but as such, Unilife must abide by the Rules of both exchanges.
I don't have any experience of the rules of Nasdaq.
But I know for a fact that the info provided to s/h was hopelessly insufficient to abide by the Continuous Disclosure obligations required by Unilife to be listed on the ASX.
Unilife got into financial difficulty, and the big medicos came in and provided funding.
But Unilife failed to provide s/h with the very most basic of info.
I remember a statement put out by Unilife which stated that one of the Lenders was to attend Board meetings of Unilife. I said at the time, that situation was fraught with danger for all parties.
And here we have it.
The question we (and Litigation funders) need to focus on, is the activities of these medicos, which appear to have been running Unilife. Remember that one or more of these Lenders has security over most of the assets of value. They are customers, they are security holders, they are shareholders, they are life-blood lenders. So one must ask, now that Unilife has gone bust (which it effectively has), just WHICH HAT were these Lenders wearing???
So the guys who were standing behind the Directors of Unilife in the Boardroom, are probably in deep sheet - because my understanding is that if they figuratively have a hand on the shoulder of the Unilife director, when the director is making a decision, then that "shadow" person is acting as a director of Unilife!
Ergo that "shadow director" assumes the personal liabilities as does a duly elected director.
Equally, when a company fails to provide necessary factual info it is similar to providing wrong info. ie if one fails to provide pertinent info, it can be just as bad as providing the wrong info.

So IMHO, Unilife board seemed to go to great lengths in providing coy announcements which were straight out of a Court verdict/submission written about some high-brow technical legal argument. They deliberately provided information to s/h which was mostly indecipherable to a reasonable person.
They did that to give the impression that they were abiding by their obligations.
But the info did not provide any clear, reasonable info on just what was the position of Unilife at the time.
ie what contracts did it actually have at the time? what sort of funding did it need? what were estimated budgets and expenses? what was liquidity situation? who would provide funding? they were telling us they were developing products, but we were not told of who for, likely sales, customer support etc etc.
All this important stuff was withheld.
That's the basic stuff.
That's the stuff required under the Continuous Disclosure obligations.
That's what a Reasonable Person would want to know.
That's the stuff that you as an investor would want to know, and need to know, in order to make a decision as to invest, or not, in Unilife.
If you had that info, you may well have sold months ago, and mitigated your losses.
For example, was Unilife actually insolvent 18mths ago??? We would have had no bloody clue, because we were given no operational info on which to base any decision!
That will be a big issue if someone starts asking questions.
There will be no distributions to shareholders from the carcass of Unilife.
The best alternative is to contact those lawyers who posted on HC way back.
Those Lenders/ Customers to Unilife will recover product, patents, intellectual assets etc from the Unilife carcass - there will be no funds remaining.
There will be value in the IP etc, but it will do shareholders no good, because it will be secured by those Lenders.
Mark my words - those Lenders' positions will be conflicted.
This was a head-on crash just waiting to happen.

Shareholders always come last - unless you pickup a big stick.
cheers

all just IMHO - DYOR