IIRC wasn't Peacock put there by Shaws when they were the house...

IIRC wasn't Peacock put there by Shaws when they were the house broker before AMU allegedly stiffed them and their corporates with the ARW placement that landed just before Butcher was paid out and the whole thing blew up?

Might the cynical think little appears to have changed?

The market HAS assigned a valuation to the Co and to its reserves and then appears to have subtracted a chunk to cover the fact that AMU is a GAS player in the US market (forget all the talk about it being "just" a punt on POO) then whipped off a little more again to cover the fact that "Management" yet again are going for the "buyback" option. Number 5 or 6?
We all know what prices the others were done at. And also what difference it made.
Why didn't they simply return the funds to the rightful owners: shareholders? Been a long long time since they've seen any "largess".

If you were (still) a shareholder you might wonder why they couldn't flog it all and therefore what value there really is in whats left.

Some might argue that after trumpeting the Takeover card for so long they've yet again managed to underwhelm everyone.

Note the above is my opinion ONLY.