duty to release informatiom promptly, page-3

TT;
Tiny,
I go one step further. Someone should email BTA Management these questions or ask them these questions.

On 30 May, when BTA announced the cancellation of shares bought in the share buy-back, BTA failed to state BTA had suspended the share buy-back. In fact one can rightly ask why did BTA announced shares bought back for half of the month of May as shares bought back for the full month of May especially in the light of the fact that Peter Cook & the board had information affecting the share price and had decided to suspend the share buyback. One may asked whether reporting half of the month of May as the whole month of May deceptively hid the fact Peter Cook and friends had suspended the share buy back.

Yes, in a lot of circumstances, our Australian Courts had ruled that being economic with the truth or telling half the truth is misleading, unconscionable and deceptive. There you have it. We have a board that diluted shareholders holdings with shares converted with zero exercise price immediately before settling the $700M case for $20M after turning down a $100M settlement offer and spending more than $30M in legal costs. This same board reported on 30th May share buy back for half a month of May as share bought back for May and failed to inform shareholders they had suspended the share buy back and they had information that affected the share price.

Is this what shareholders expect from diligent and honest directors? Are there any other price sensitive information that they have not announced?