I'm not going to go into this fully, but if there wasn't a...

I'm not going to go into this fully, but if there wasn't a breach of continuous disclosure requirements they must have gone very close.

Listing Rule 3.1, which requires a listed entity to immediately give ASX any information concerning it that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the price or value of the entity’s securities.

On the 23rd of Sept we have the below announcement:

Proposed acquisition:


General meeting Form from the 18th of October:





Note the completion of placement 25/11/22

From the 30th of Nov completion of Acquisition announcement:


So had they entered into a binding contract or not? At this point they would have known whether the placement was going ahead or not?

Considering the previous statements about the "binding" terms of the acquisition would a reasonable person deem this to be material to the share price. To me it would. Curious on others thoughts?

The on the 30h of March the $5m capital raising was announced and again no mention of the placement and Macro Metals decision to withdraw from taking up their entitlement.

Instead they take part in the placement for $600K at $0.08

Again no mention of why the previous placement didn't take place.

From the response letter dated the 22nd of March




So as per the above they blame market conditions for the placement not going ahead.

Yet as of the 25th of September they have stated that they have entered into a "binding" agreement for the acquisition.

To me the the ASX have asked the wrong question.

I would be asking the company at that point did they or did they not know that the placement would or would not be going ahead.

I would assume they knew at this point it was not. How can this not be deemed to be material?

The response then to question 7 again makes no sense to me.


In line with the shareholder approval they continued to monitor the markets for three months.

Well hang on they have stated they have entered into a binding agreement. What were the terms of that agreement?

Why was the market not updated on any of the above?