I agree with your underlying points (but not necessarily your examples).
I think the issue for big institutions is being able to control the timing and content of the narrative. If IAM was a private company there would be absolutely no issue. They could contract with a major institution and unless that institution considered the contract to have a material effect on their own SP they would not have to announce it. The problem that arises when they are dealing with another listed company is that what may not be material to them (the bigger partner) is obviously material to the supplier and would need to be disclosed. That disclosure may not fit with their own strategy - hence the conflict.
This was painfully apparent in the mess that resulted from the NAB announcement.
The issue is going to apply to any deal where the service offering is potentially controversial. Being silly for a moment imagine if a listed robotics company came up with an offering that allowed hospitals to cut a significant part of their overhead - say nursing. As soon as an agreement of any sort was entered into the listed company would need to announce it and any and all parties with a vested interest would be all over it, closely followed by anyone else (think politicians) that thought they could get mileage from it. If the robotics company was private the hospital/government would be able to exercise a greater degree of control over the release of information.
This is an extremely tricky area for companies like IAM and in hindsight probably not properly considered. When Intiger was private the issue didn't really exist, or when it did the client could control the information flow, now the rules of continuous disclosure dictate proceedings.
IAM Price at posting:
4.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
