Shambles and confused are words I would apply to the present situation. One confusion is at the early stages EFSS stated they had permission of the majority shareholders for full disclosure of financial info but later the directors stated they needed permission and full disclosure would be available after the AGM. Did we not already have this or was it rescinded?

Another confusion is the "directors' bid". I thought it was a bid by 4 directors but not on behalf of EFFC but as individuals with the intent of setting up a holding trust to hold the shares.( Livingston has a similar arrangement with Rankine as the major shareholder in the secondary company and look what is happening to them.) If that is the case they are not acting as directors and so gang of four bid would be more appropriate than directors' bid?

However this could be construed in some way as a conflict of interest. Although the land sale and share purchase have been portrayed as separate, the sale of land could affect the share price despite some objections to this point of view. There seems to be lots of unanswered questions. One of which is have the directors acted in the best interests of EFFC as a whole and if not are they liable for prosecution?

indeed.