facts/questions that asic should focus on

(1) When did NBS first become aware that the Malaysia contract was not going to meet published guidance of $60-80mill per year? It is impossible for NBS management not to have been aware of material changes to the Malaysia contract by early June. Are the company's grounds for withholding this material information from the market until October 2 legitimate? And does the October 2 note itself provide enough detail regarding Malaysia to avoid creating a false market?

(2) Did NBS management intentionally mislead analysts and investors about the status of the Malaysia contract prior to October 2? There is no hint that there was a problem with Malaysia in the preliminary report and results presentation. After talking with NBS management following the preliminary report, analysts were generally of the view that the implementation of the Malaysia contract had gone very well and that this contract alone would deliver $60-80mill in FY10 (as per published NBS guidance). Furthermore, even with the full year statutory accounts, the significantly smaller than expected Malaysia revenue was not "highlighted" (as claimed in today's announcement), but rather buried on page 45 without commentary.

(3) Following the preliminary report, and discussion with NBS management, some analysts put out FY10 NPAT forecasts in the region of $80mill. NBS management must have known at that time that such a forecast was nowhere near realistic. Did NBS have a duty under corporations law and ASX listing rule 3.1 to correct unrealistic analyst forecasts?

(4) In their May 18 announcement, NBS management flagged only $20mill in revenue from China in FY09. Yet, China ended up generating $43.5mill of revenue, thus making up the massive Malaysia revenue short fall in the final weeks of June. Was proper accounting protocol followed in recognition of this additional China revenue?

(5) NBS has unambiguously informed the market that its Chinese gas tank contract is with the 'low risk' Chinese govt. Has NBS intentionally misled the market and its auditor as to the true identity of its Chinese counterparty? If a reasonable person was in command of all the facts as to the ownership structure of CITP, would this person conclude that it is in fact an entity majority controlled by the Chinese government? (IMO, and assuming the form 8-K cited in my previous post is accurate, the only way one could argue that CITP is a Chinese govt entity is if Saddington is a Chinese govt entity; but this seems highly unlikely).

(6) Was Sovereign Key (the original vendor of Nexbis) trading on inside information regarding the Malaysian contract when it sold out of NBS in May/June?

(7) Were some shareholders given advanced knowledge of the content of today's announcement on the 28th of October (see chart and course of trades)?