Oh dear.
You are firing from the hip without adequate thought, afaict.
Sure the ASX Listing Rules Guidance Note 11 states:
The term “voluntary escrow” is used to describe an arrangement where:
an entity and the holder of securities have entered into an agreement restricting the right of the holder to
dispose of the securities in a form similar to that set out in Appendix 9A20 or in such other form as the entity
and the holder agree; and
they were not required to enter into the agreement under Chapter 9.21
BUT, what you fail to recognise is that description may not necessarily apply to ANY such arrangement.
Read that again.
The term ESCROW is common and has clear meaning - it involves the temporary holding of money/assets by a THIRD PARTY.
Do you dispute that?
The Appendix 3B associated with the proposed issue answers NO to the following question:
"Will any of the securities to be issued be subject to voluntary escrow?"
In a situation where ATL has agreed to a 12-month standstill period on those issued shares (as the company has clearly stated in a formal announcement), AND no third party is involved (i.e. there is NO escrow arrangement), why would the company answer YES to that question, when it would be untrue, regardless of the description provided in Guidance Note 11...?
It says:
"used to describe an arrangement.."
NOT
"used to describe ANY arrangement".
Detail matters.
I'll make it easy for you.
Bazza has a cat.
When asked if he has a pet dog, where "pet dog" is used to describe a domesticated animal that is kept at your home, Bazza says NO, despite the fact that he does indeed have a domesticated animal that is kept at his home.
It is NOT a cat.
The description does not encompass ANY domesticated animal. "Dog" is a clearly recognised term, with its own clear definition,
Bazza answered correctly, despite the "description" provided wrt "pet dog".
Shazza owns an airship.
When asked if she has a privatejet, where "private jet" is used to describe an aircraft owned by an individual, family, or organization for personal or business use, Shazza says NO, despite the fact that she does indeed own an aircraft for personal use.
It is NOT a jet.
The description does not encompass ANY aircraft. "Jet" is a clearly recognised term, with its own clear definition.
Need more..?
Similarly, there can be an agreement that does NOT involve escrow (escrow = NO; voluntary escrow = NO), and it would therefore be inaccurate to answer YES to the voluntary escrow question, despite there being an arrangement in place that restricts the disposal of securities....because the arrangement has NOTHING to do with escrow and the "description" provided in the guidance note does not necessarily reflect ANY and ALL such arrangements wrt a restricting agreement.
Your conclusion that AGY and ATL do not have an agreement for those shares to be in a 12-month standstill, is NOT confirmed by your supposed "proof".
SIMPLE.
AFAICT, for your conclusion to be accurate, that ASX document would NOT use the term ESCROW, and even IF the ASX thought it could take the liberty of hijacking common terms with clear meaning, and use them to characterise unrelated circumstances (which is clearly absurd), they would need to have also stated:
"used to describe ANY arrangement..."
instead of
"used to describe an arrangement...."
for that to actually encompass ANY and ALL such agreements, including those that have nothing to do with escrow.
Perhaps brush up on your comprehension and key concepts regarding terminology and mutual exclusivity.
Detail matters.
Get better.
DYOR everyone.
Skim over the detail at your own peril.
(20min delay)