AVZ's response to the ASX query made public that there had been...

AVZ's response to the ASX query made public that there had been one "Confidential MOU" but when the strategic advisor tweets "+ Confidential MOUs" (note plural not singular) ASX pretty much had to ask about the tweet once that fact was made known to them.

ML would arguably be more likely to know about the existence and number of MOUs (including confidential MOUs), with AVZ than just about anyone.

Of course the ASX had to ask. Once they became aware of the tweet and of ML's special knowledge arising as a result of his role. The twitter business (as a form of media) isn't the point, the point is that sort of disclosure, once made removes confidentiality (about existence of MOUs) and disclosures of material information must be made to the ASX first, that is the law.

ML's tweet was very recent. He said "confidential MOUs" (plural) either he mistyped (quite likely in my opinion that he was over-relaxed (for a professional strategic advisor) on an informal forum) or there are in fact other confidential MOUs and AVZ hasn't disclosed them. I am not trying to be mischievous - simply logical.

It is inherently unwise for retail investors to applaud a system in which there are two acceptable lines of potentially (and actually) contradictory information sources - because retail investors need their to be accountability by the management of their public companies (not just AVZ but all of them). They don't need to create additional options for plausible deniability - that just creates further unnecessary risk to their investments.