RE:Sellers ?
I am not sure I understand the reasoning of some which says that TV wants to drive the shares to zero or that there are big expectation of dilutions as in the past. Remember that TV (et al) owns 85% of the issued shares which means driving it to zero a total loss for them too and I dont think they have done what they have done so far to write off their investment in LMNL. If TV decides on dilution to raise cash for LMNL , they will end up investing 85% or more of the cash raised if they want to keep the same/similar % holdings with a lower share price. So I cant see how this can/will be attractive to them.
For those who say that TV has done so in the past and will be just as likely to do the same again, I would like to say it is not the same. TV did not own any shares before so yes, the 'old' shareholders (which include me) were screwed royally (for lack of better words) but now that the retail investors/shareholders only own 15% of the issued shares, whatever TV decides to do will affect them way more than the remaining retail shareholders.
Of course this reasoning is all wrong.
Sure, TV & Consonant would lose their 85% just like the other 15% of the investors and all these shares would essentially be wiped out, but the obvious difference is that in a new restructure very close to 100% of the NEW shares would be issued to the debt holders (TV) so effectively they will own thw whole ball of wax for their debt being exchanged for the NEW shares. They would probably have a deal with Consonance that protects them. The only thing that might deter TV from going this route is the very terrible optics from trying the same rotten game twice. So rest assured the money needed will be put up by TV if necessary at a decent interest rate or terms favorable to them but there is no risk of BK for inability to get outside funding.