Ann: Trading Halt, page-27

Agreed. They are different notices, which I believe serve different purposes. The one common element is that both types notice/information/announcement only started being issued after our old CoSec left!

The Additional Information announcement that you referred to (issued 23/08/17) related to an ASX Listing Rule (3.10.5A), which, as I understand it, relates to detailing the dilution caused by the issuance of new shares under ASX Listing Rule 7.1A (i.e. the additional 10% placement rule).

From my readings today, a 708A(5)(e) Notice is a statutory requirement (Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)) pursuant to the continuous disclosure requirements relating to the issuance of new shares that do not meet the exemption criteria set out in 708A(5)(e). It all seems to hinge around whether the various disclosures (3Bs) to the the relevant market operator (ASX) were made before the various sale offers (of new shares) were made. [and... breathe]

On my reading and interpretation (whatever that's worth), since the various 3B announcements to the ASX were made after the shares were issued, not before (more specifically, not before the sale offers were made, but let's use the new share issue dates as a proxy), then POS did not met the disclosure exception criteria that is set out in 708A(5)(e). So, a notice taking the form required under in 708A(6) was required for each and every occasion.

Summary:
It appears that because all our new share offer/issuance disclosures take the form of 3Bs, which are announced after the fact, then a matching accompanying 708A(5)(e) Notice is also required.

And if the new shares are being issued under the ASX's additional 10% placement rule (7.1A), then an additional Notice to satisfy ASX Listing Rule 3.10.5A is also required (e.g.: the 23/08/17 notice).

On my reading and interpretation, this is highly, highly, procedural stuff, nothing more. Some might say it's a waste of time, my view is that these checks and balances are what separate an advanced society that enjoys a good standard of living (and rule of law) from, er... let's just say "less fortunate" societies.

I hope I'm correct in believing that this is not serious and will blow over soon enough. It sure as hell is not a good look, however, given management's performance history!!

Hats off our current outsourced CoSec (Eryn Kestel), or whoever it was who identified the reporting holes and took steps to plug them!

KerrodT's, thesis about this possibly being a house cleaning exercise for an interested third party conducting DD, is interesting. Or perhaps the motivation is the directors implementing a healthy does of CYA?

Phew! I need a lie down now...

PS. (re- the astronaut comment) G, you don't happen to own an early-model Tesla, by chance? (lol)