No, they didn't state they have "no issue" with the performance...

No, they didn't state they have "no issue" with the performance shares. That's intentionally misleading. I think the wording was "not challenging" the existence of the performance shares. There's a big difference.

However, they have decided that they'd pursue charges that the directors entered questionable, zero growth contracts that resulted in them claiming a third of the company in performance shares, while doing absolutely nothing to build value, and in doing so, failed to act in shareholder interests. You do realise that this is very different to "no issue" with the performance shares, right?

"A little bird". Everyone knows you're associated with the company. We all know that an ASIC team audited the financials before the suspension, and didn't find proof at the time, however they clearly had question marks, and further investigations continued (leading us to where we are today). You are, yet again, spinning things for the company. Half truths and shortcuts. That's what we've come to expect sadly.