Analysis only please, page-8

My analysis - for what it's worth?
Bells London statements - careless perhaps but I doubt that "intentionally misleading" will stick. I am actually unable to find the actual verbatim statements that ASIC "contend" to be at the heart of the action that I am sure would have been spurred on by a disgruntled former holder.
Continuous disclosure might be an issue but neither are hanging offences. A kick in the arse, a fine at the lower end and a period of disqualification as a director will be likely outcome if any of the charges stick at all.
it is not unusual for ASIC to start off half cocked and breathing fire then fizzle to a whimper and withdrawal of action when there is little or no public benefit / interest.
I feel AUZ will move on quickly. The resource is still there and LG presumably still needs it.