Inappropriate - I think not! - Continuous Disclosure obligations...

Inappropriate - I think not! - Continuous Disclosure obligations require the company to disclose such information - even if it is to say that it is defending the situation. Interestingly you seem to know more of the situation, the amount of the claim has not been disclosed by ASIC.

These very forums assist to inform the "uninformed shareholders or members of the public" as you put it, especially in situations like this where they may not even find out.

If one reads the Rights Issue document the company openly discloses it only has $1k and $2k in cash - which is consistent with each qrtly report of recent time - so if you say the amount owed is $32k then is it not coincidental that The Professor is contributing $32k above the "conversion of debt" - so is it really a case of management putting in???

Your very suggestion that such commentary should not be in these public forums is of significant concern to me, and I am sure for others too - we live in a country of free speech, nothing that I have stated is not available in the public domain in one form or another, opinions formed are my own and I state as much - DYOR.

My message this evening relates to a very fact that a wholly owned subsidiary of ASX:NIU has a pending winding up notice - which has a potential to impact SP and other matters - to have reached the notices in ASIC means the company chose to disregard the Statutory Demand, the last of other demands - most organisations would try to avoid having to defend a winding-up application. So I have another valid question - what is the cost of the defence in comparison to the debt, if as you state it is for only $32k - and if the company could afford to pay that can it afford to pay the defence?