In fact, as a matter of law, it is immaterial whether the results announced on Monday or Tuesday are positive or negative. The trade-prohibition rules state that no director-trading is allowed when in possession of information that might affect SP (positively or negatively).
3.3 Prohibition in Dealing While in Possession of Relevant Information
Dealing in AVZ securities is subject to the prohibition that an employee or director must not deal in AVZ securities:
• at any time when he or she is in possession of unpublished, information which, if generally available, might materially affect the price or value of those AVZ securities;
1. On September 5, AVZ announced that “drill hole MO17DD001 samples have finally been received …. drill hole MO17DD007 has now also been received.”
2. Director's (on-market) selling occurred on September 12, 13, 14 after announcement of positive drill hole 1 results (on 9/12), prior to the announcement of the drill hole 7 results – even though samples for drill holes 1 and 7 were received concurrently.
What is the logical (and legal) inference?
First, it has to be good news to holders -- the next announcement about drill hole 7 will have to be very positive. Because if it were not, AVZ will need to explain why it choose not to concurrently analyse and announce samples received at the same time. The burden of proof will be on the director to explain why he chose to announce only drill hole 1 results, then traded a massive 30% of his holdings, and then had drill hole 7 results analysed and announced.
Second, it has to be bad news to AVZ management. Irrespective of the sentiment of next-week's announcements they will have to explain the staggered analyzing/announcements of samples received concurrently with same heavy director trading in between.
BTW, the question if the director is an Australian resident, or an Australian resident for tax purposes, or a citizen of Germany, Monaco, or elsewhere, is completely irrelevant when this case goes south.
Expand
