Ann: Settlement of ASIC civil proceedings, page-23

Because the Board represent the company & failed as a team.
They did it under the company name.
Therefore the company name needs the mark against it to help inform ppl to be cautious when thinking of getting involved/investing in the company.

I get what you’re saying 100% but it’s just how it is- even though I think each Director should be clearly named in any prosecution to ascertain the level of culpability as well as the company.

The shareholders may have benefited from this failing if it hadn’t been uncovered. They are in effect ‘in company’ with those that committed the breach/es.

I’d say it’s getting boring being right.. but it ain’t.
Their presentations just didn’t add up.

ASIC agrees with that view & now even the Board does so I guess the ‘No they didn’t! You just don’t understand!’ posts will go silent now with no contrition of any kind & it will now be a game of ‘that’s over- we only think about the future!’

None of that will change how the company is perceived by the market and those who could fund it.
This is a big black mark that won’t go away for many years to come.

$500,000 down the tubes! By direct debit or via higher insurance costs moving forward. Anyone else see a 4.5-6 cent CR on the horizon which might drag the SP down to 2-3 cents?