These are good Qs and would be interesting to ask NEA directly -...

These are good Qs and would be interesting to ask NEA directly - perhaps one for the upcoming AGM?

I had a quick look again at the facts and there's a few possible reasons they didn't discuss Verisk earlier. They did say in the January announcement that they had been hoping to offset the loss via a major partnership that ultimately did not eventuate, leading to a net material change that needed to be announced.

I'm 50/50 about whether the loss of specific contracts need to be announced. Like most hard questions I feel the answer is "it depends", on the size of the contract. It's a hard one because if you're required to announce the loss of $X m/year, is there then an expectation that the signing of a $X m/year customer will also be announced when that may already be factored into the broader ACV guidance? Then you start getting into weird territory of "here's guidance" and "here's stuff we hadn't factored into guidance", keeping in mind they went through the 2019 with the same public guidance so there was still a belief that irrespective of Verisk they could still hit guidance (unless you believe they were outright lying about guidance).

Timeline wise after the initial judgment around 26 September there was a temporary restraining order in place, and the permanent injunction ruling came out on 21 October. You could argue whether there should have been an announcement then but ultimately it comes back to the above question of what is "material enough".

Whilst Ian Morris' sale timing is coincidental (9 October), he had announced on 27 August his intention to not seek re-election at the next AGM: https://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=02138591 so it seems entirely reasonable for him to sell his stake. He sold at $2.45 so you could say he got a fantastic price (relative to January or March 2020), or he didn't get the best price (relative to later in October 2019 when NEA hit $2.90).