Bottle, "They were then compelled by ASX to provide...

Bottle,

"They were then compelled by ASX to provide clarification." Don't fall into the same trap as Growler. Neither of you have evidence that NOR or PO were "compelled" by the ASX to provide clarification. Indeed, had the ASX compelled them to do so then there would be an announcement to that effect from the ASX .... and the subsequent response. The company may have been "compelled" to clarify their original announcement of their own volition. To suggest some deliberate nefarious omission by the company to mislead the market can cause harm to a person's or company's reputation and is therefore potentially defamatory, despite Growler's incorrect (typically keyboard-warrior, google-based) assumptions to the contrary.

So, go and check your understanding of ipso facto and while you are at it look up "reductio ad absurdum" and decide whose line of argument is most valid based on the real facts of the announcements.

Just as an aside, it was stated earlier by our resident genius that the GMSA has "no commercial value". However, it could be argued that for a company the size of Singtel to go to the trouble of putting together a GROUP MSA with a minnow like NOR adds significant "commercial value" to a company. There is a clear intention to pursue future relationships and possibly contracts between the parties - otherwise, why bother? Surely, in most people's eyes, that has commercial value. It is very clear that Singtel sees that Norwood has something to offer their businesses. Of course, the naysayers on here are clearly better informed than the analysts at Singtel who have obviously been deceived by NOR. It would appear that the legal experts and company analysts have been sold a pup! Having said that, my sentiment remains at "hold" until the first (hopefully of many) contarct(s) arrives on PO's desk.

GLTAH