Ann: Request for reinstatement of trading, page-271

I agree.

IMO this is much simpler then much of what I have read on this thread today. IMO the 'mistake' by CRO was requesting the 'Trading Halt'. The mistake was not that they wanted to let shareholders know, thats good governance.

If CRO had just announced the agreeements, and let ASX decide if they were price-sensitive or not, we would not be having this conversation.

My suspicion is that CRO were being overly cautious, because they strongly believe they know this will be materially impactful. The result of the ASX now stating a view this didn't warrant a TH reaffims that CRO were over cautious.

I hold a Fintech who are much larger and were non-binding agreements / MoU's are announced with large organisations, and often not even price sensitive, because the material financial revenue / impact cannot yet be determined. This last bit is often stated in the announcement.It doesn't change the fact these are agreements.

It doesn't change the fact that CRO believe these will generate a lots of cash. It just means ASX don't believe it warrants a TH because CRO can't 'demonstrate' / 'guarantee' it will generate revenue, even if CRO 'believe' it to be likely. To believe something is sometimes not enough.

CRO is a small company and as I say being very cautious. They got the call for a TH wrong, but I don't think materially this affects what is (or isn't) fundamentally going on in terms of CRO's progress. It also doesn't effect whether or not CRO believe this will generate a lot of revenue for them.

I also wouldn't be suprised to see an 'announcement' in coming days, with some detail about the nature of these new agreements that CRO and/or INVIGO have entered into.

EB