Hi Mate, kind of...
So basically if a company is issuing new securities it needs inform the market via a cleansing prospectus as a means of validating or legitimizing the securities that were provided. In KNM's case here, they failed to do this? What I don't understand is the whole civil liability case though? does that mean a person who bought and subsequently sold shares that weren't announced via the cleansing prospectus performed an illegal transaction?
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- KNM
- Ann: Trading Halt
Ann: Trading Halt, page-8
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 5 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Add KNM (ASX) to my watchlist
|
|||||
Last
0.2¢ |
Change
0.000(0.00%) |
Mkt cap ! $3.526M |
Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
0.0¢ | 0.0¢ | 0.0¢ | $0 | 0 |
Featured News
KNM (ASX) Chart |
Day chart unavailable
The Watchlist
HAR
HARANGA RESOURCES LIMITED.
Peter Batten, MD
Peter Batten
MD
Previous Video
Next Video
SPONSORED BY The Market Online