Ann: Company Update, page-3

Ridiculous.
Imagine if the sahreholders asked the ASX to investigate a little further? I have done so as per my paraphrased mail below:

"I refer to TikForce Operations Ltd. which is about to be "sold" (at least the main undertaking and the IP) to an unknown, new, off-the-shelf company in the UK. This company has no history but a search reveals the fact that its principlal, Terence Richards, is also a director in Jenepé Ltd (UK) AND Jenepé Ltd Australia.
During the announcement of the sale, Mr Richards' nationality seems to have changed from British to Australian (according to Companies House records in the UK) yet no disclosure of this link has been made.
On 17th August in a letter from James Rowe - Manager, Listings Compliance (Perth) to TikForce, they were informed that; "In addition ASX considers the Announcement must be updated to disclose details of TKF’s knowledge of, and due diligence into, Gambier Holdings Ltd.".
As far as I am aware, they have not provided any such information to the shareholders and it is clear that Gambier Holdings in not the company that they claimed in their announcement of the 16th August! - "Gambier is a technology holding company headquartered in London UK. Gambier provides innovative regulatory and compliance based technology solutions across a diverse range of industry sectors." That statement is an outright lie as Gambier was only formed on the 27th June this year, has no trading history, no accounts, no website or online presence at all!
My questions are twofold:
1. Where is the due dilligence on Gambier?
2. Did TikForce approach anyone else at all regarding a sale of their main undertaking? It strikes me that at $350k it is a bargain basement sale and not at all in the shareholders' interests.
The link to Jenepé in Australia (whose business is pre-listing finance, prospectus etc) seems to indicate that there could be a re-listing of the software under a different name in the future, once they have gotten rid of those pesky shareholders!
Is the ASX following this at all? Surely there must be an Australian company or individual more qualified to take this company on and fix it? By following this path, the CEO, Kevin Baum, is tacitly admitting that he is unable to run the company and restore its original vision. Should the shareholders be made to pay for his apparent chronic mis-management? Do they really have to lose the rest of their investments as well?
At least, please follow up on the Gambier due dilligence.
If I can find out this much, I am sure that the ASX can find more."

Worth a shot.