In this case, it involves delisting from the ASX "as it is no longer in the best interests of the company" or its billionaire investors such as Gerry Harvey, News Corp's Lachlan Murdoch and Melbourne's Mathieson family.

Funtastic cited the low level of liquidity in the stock, and said the costs of remaining listed outweighed the benefits.

But there was also a hint of what will be happening behind closed doors.

"The company's removal from the official list is expected to improve its ability to raise capital and grow its business and may have a positive effect on its ability to restructure its debt."

Yes, there is some major surgery brewing with its debt holders.

In October last year the company unveiled a $23.5m loss - taking accumulated losses to $228 million loss - cash flows were negative, it had a $17 million net asset deficiency and debts were rising.

Those accounts were prepared on a "going concern" basis, with NAB reported to have a big exposure to Funtastic's $48 million debt.

Senior management took pay cuts of up to 20 per cent, as it tried to stay afloat, but it did not impress investors who launched a 41 per cent strike against its remuneration report at the pre-Christmas AGM.

Go Harvey

Between Funtastic's woes and the alleged ASIC woes hanging over Harvey Norman, it is no wonder that Gerry Harvey was trying to be as anonymous as possible at the HomeShow at Sydney's Darling Harbour over the weekend.

Gerry was spotted, head down under a white baseball cap, checking out some of the rival exhibits at the exhibition.

Let's hope there were a few bargains, Gerry had already spent the week hoovering up 3 million Harvey Norman shares at a cost of $13 million to placate jittery markets.

Blood drops

The Wall Street Journal has reported that its proprietor Rupert Murdoch has sold his $US125 million ($164 million) investment in scandal-ridden blood-testing group Theranos for just $US1.

According to the report, Murdoch did not join other prominent investors who collectively put $US600 million into the company in 2015 and have been given additional shares in return for a promise not to sue the company or its founder and chief executive Elizabeth Holmes.

While Murdoch will apparently receive some upside if the company recovers from its various setbacks - which include investigations by regulators and lawsuits by investors - the report does not say whether he is retaining the right to sue the company.

The only thing Murdoch has gained from his Theranos investment, besides a harsh lesson on why he should stick to media investments, is a tax loss that will help cushion that bill this year.

Holmes can take some solace that the loss from Murdoch's investment in her company pales in comparison to the billions that News Corp investors have lost on his $US5 billion acquisition of the WSJ nearly a decade ago.

The downfall of Theranos was triggered by an article the WSJ published that first raised doubts about the claims of the company's celebrity CEO, who was a billionaire at 30 and being dubbed the Steve Jobs of biotechnology.

The great promise of Theranos is that it could conduct the full range of laboratory tests - ranging from cholesterol to herpes - using just a few drops from a fingertip pin prick instead of a needle and syringe.

It was expected to revolutionise healthcare affordability and led Murdoch and other wealthy investors to inject $US632 million in Theranos between 2014 and 2015, which valued the company at $US9 billion.

Holmes owned half the company but that will be significantly reduced after she agreed to hand over her personal stock to Murdoch's fellow investors in return for their pledge not to take legal action.

"This is an affirmative development for the company, providing a path forward in partnership with employees, investors and other stakeholders," said Theranos director Daniel Warmenhoven --the only person to speak on the record to the WSJ.

"Elizabeth elected to contribute her own equity to protect any dilution of shares held by other parties."

The Theranos-wrecking WSJ report came out just months after the major investment by Murdoch in 2015.

The US Food and Drug Administration raised concerns within weeks of the report. By January last year, federal regulators were claiming the company violated clinical standards.

By June, Forbes estimated that Holmes' stake was worthless.

The company has survived and still had $US200 million in cash at the end of last year. But there are investigations and law suits pending as outsiders try to answer the basic question: is the company a fraud?

And leading the charge could well be Murdoch's WSJ.

Seeking refuge

Peter Holmes a Court, son of the late corporate raider Robert, has been on something of an odyssey since leaving behind the corporate world and his successful stint as a co-owner of the South Sydney Rabbitohs - he sold his stake to James Packer after the rugby league club's premiership win in 2014.

He will be returning to Australia in a few weeks for his new venture promoting the cause of refugees alongside his wife - American photojournalist, Alissa Everett.

The duo host an event this Tuesday at King & Wood Mallesons Bourke Street offices to talk about their work documenting the major refugee and migration flows across the world. They head up to the University of NSW for another event April 5.

It all sounds much more worthwhile than the output from his annual pilgrimage to Davos.

Follow CBD on Twitter. Got a tip? ckruger@fairfaxmedia.com.au