I agree with both of you up to a point - I thought that is what I had said. They can get away with a certain amount but there has to be a limit to what they can hide behind in terms of "insufficient information for reasonable certainty" and also "confidentiality".
For example, with respect to the former, if SNE3 turned out to be a dud and yet they still reported a material increase in resource on the basis of currently known SNE2 results then they would I think retrospectively have been in questionable compliance.
And with respect to the latter, if they were in possession of information that was sufficient of sufficient certainty to require release under the material change rules, would they still be able to hide behind this on the grounds of confidentiality? I think not. The ASX flow chart in my post below suggests some sort of dialogue between companies and the ASX may be necessary to determine what is eligible to be retained as “confidential”.
Then again, I’m just musing, and these are not the musings of a qualified legal practitioner.
pj
FAR Price at posting:
7.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)