Is ASIC is the real problem here, not AZZ?, page-32

If its trading with false information, then either existing or new investors are being misled.

ASIC made a simple request - that was the name of the buyer.

Now, if its a "BINDING" contract as many have been led to believe - how can the buyer being named, would result in the "buyer" being seduced away to another "seller" or back out of the deal, or somehow jeopardize the deal.

If its binding contract, and the buyer backed out on the deal - well, you go to court to get enforcement of the contract - end of story!!!

Now, if its NOT BINDING, why would anyone or new investor pay 50 cents on the shares?!?

It would probably be sitting around 10 cents or less......because NON BINDING equals to NO CERTAINTY of ever Receiving the Money.

Note, it was the announcement of the Binding nature of the contract that resulted in the upward movement of the SP.

On a final point, I note the other directors have not resigned (directors like to run away from a sinking ship), so there could still be some type of negotiation still.

JMHO.