A director who is a lawyer giving advice to a shareholder during...

A director who is a lawyer giving advice to a shareholder during a period of trading halt is inexcusable and not something one would expect of a director who is a member of the Australian Institute of Directors.. The simple action of waiting till the announcement was made and then responding to the long term shareholder was all that was necessary as all the detail necessary as to why the halt was contained in the original notice. The question one asks themselves is that if their is a response like this now to a long term holder what has happened in the past. It is best to address this now and reinforce the obligations of directors than to let it slide if you ask me.

It is unfair to all shareholders or people considering investing in the company to even insinuate the following statement that was contained in his email to one shareholder even if the company is in a trading halt. It wouldn't have been public knowledge unless the holder published the details here.

We will be working hard tonight to try and surprise the market with an announcement tomorrow morning.

The trading halt described why the companies shares were suspended and when they would be reinstated. In no way did the trading halt state that the company was working hard to surprise the market with an announcement tomorrow a day earlier than when the statement earlier in the day said will likely be made prior to the commencement of normal trade on 15 April. What changed between when the halt was called and the time the interaction with the long term holder occurred? Some people who may have read the original announcement may have thought there is some chance it could come out earlier as the original halt stated St George Mining requests that the trading halt last until the Company makes an announcement to the market but it didn't give the extra detail that was revealed to a long term holder which could have put them at a slight advantage to other holders.