Ann: Suspension from Official Quotation, page-286

ASX Stated:
The securities of Weebit Nano Ltd (‘WBT’) will be suspended from quotation immediately under Listing Rule 17.3, pending WBT’s appointment of sufficient directors to comply with section 201A(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

But 17.3 seems to be about breaking a listing rule
ASX Listing Rules Chapter 17 - Trading halts, suspension, removal
Yet the suspension refers to 17.3 aplying because WBT broke section 201A in the Corporations Act.
Which talks about a $1062.50 fine etc

So is the Corporations Act part of the ASX listing rules?
If it isn't, then what listing rule was broken?

I don't know of course, but maybe this is why Coby and co also think it is absurd for the ASX to step in and suspend if no actual ASX listing rule is broken?
I suppose ASX has power to decide for any reason they deem appropriate. ie Rule 17.3.4

If so, then how is any listed company able to avoid anything non-related to listing, if the ASX does not like it, for whatever reason, and deems that breach as inappropriate, you can't possibly have everything covered.

So my point here is, the finger pointing at WBT management, that they should have had safeguard in place, is (in my opinion) a little unfair on them,
The power of the ASX to suspend for any reason, even outside of listing rules, is hard to foresee for any company.
That is assuming section 201A of the Corporations Act is not automatically part of the ASX listing Rules. I don't know but I guess the lawyers will reveal what is what soon enough.