I am posting on this thread, even though it is a reply to egg_tro's post on the other thread. I do not want to be seen as venting. My post is relevant to this thread. It is long, but I hope that you bear with it all the way through as its intent is to try to explain the various reported statements here on HC by the MD about Rules. Morbid Fury's post actually stated "disclosure rules" by the way. I get to that at the end, but imo it is worthwhile for interested people to know what rules and law apply generally speaking, hence the lead-up.
Egg_tro said:
....tells us his hands are tied by the rules ....
Yes, he could be just referring to the AX Listing Rules, which in part support the relevant sections of the Corporations Law.
Here they are:
ASX Listing Rules.
But, there are also other Rules.
One set is the Corporate Governance 'regulations' adopted by the company. Here they are:
Corporate Governance - Superior Resources. I have already posted an extract that is relevant to reporting. Read it instead:
SUPERIOR RESOURCES LIMITED (ASX:SPQ) - Ann: Strong mineralisation, substantial porphyry potential at CC, 69861895, page-138 | HotCopper Forum.
There are strict obligations imposed by the 2012 JORC Code(s). These are 'rules' too I suppose. There is a Code for reporting on exploration results and also one for reporting on mineral resources/ore reserves. Here they are:
Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (jorc.org).
SPQ, like all ASX-listed mining/exploration companies, has to comply with the Rules that apply to it so as to stay listed. The Corporations Law has to be complied with too as there are risks for Directors. The company's continuing registration with ASIC is basically dependent on compliance.
So, Rules and Rules and Rules.
The relevant Rules here for reporting on the exploration results (it would be too soon for an MRE) are the ASX Listing Rules and the Corporate Governance requirements. My guess is that he is referring to Listing Rules in particular.
In that regard, there would be strict compliance with the relevant JORC Code. There would have to be a template for that, so pretty straight-forward. That should not be holding them up. Refer to the last report on exploration, the one without assays. There are such reports with assays too. The Listing Rules refer to compliance with the Code. See Chapter 5 of the LR. Some are not relevant to SPQ as yet though as it is not a mining company. It is just an explorer!
Listing Rule Chapter 3 is the only other one that is relevant to SPQ so far as I can see in so far as non-periodic reporting is concerned. We are talking of that type of report here. Chapter 4 deals with periodic reporting (quarterlies etc); the all-important one that applies to every day of the year. Here it is:
Chapter03.pdf. Is this the main one to which he refers as reported on here? If so, then the question is: what is holding them up in reporting on the assays?
Answer 1. Not of any significance, in the sense that their disclosure wouldn't have any impact on the share price or
Answer 2. Of significance, in the sense that their disclosure would probably have an impact on the share price, but would potentially be incomplete and therefore potentially misleading if released in that form. (see Exceptions in R 3.1A, especially 3.1A.1 3rd bullet point ).
Re
answer 1, given the reporting on the visuals of extensive copper and big molybdenite too on 2 August and the upgraded program announced 15 days ago, I cannot see the news on the assays being of no significance. The question is whether or not they require prompt release under the duty of continuous disclosure. The answer could be 'no' of course, so wait until there is a good time to release them. In relation to
answer 2, they could be significance in the sense that their release would probably see a share price increase but the infor- mation is incomplete as, for instance, an analysis is required to make proper sense of them, in the context of the assayed minerals being possibly part of a large porphyry system. In that case, an expert's assessment is warranted for corroboration.
I think that the MD with-held the Bottletree results because of thinking it necessary to have an accompanying report from Greg Corbett. He could be doing the same thing here. If so, then please be much quicker. There is a difference here though in that whereas his report was probably needed to support applications to raise money, here there is ready money to explore and as a result exploration at CC continues. In other words, time is not being wasted this time.
