And the negative parts are? Talking to asx, securing information and talking to shareholders? OK not what we want but is that what they should do? I think so
How aabout the positives around embassy engagement and other embassies? I can guarantee none of the embassies want this to go to China.
The only concern to me is what the asx is asking, if they force us to trade it won't be good, but their only grounds to trade is that it has been a long time. The simply reality is the stock cannot trade with this uncertainty and the fact the approved 9 months of it makes it precedent to approve the rest imo. If they had not allowed the suspension alot of people would be better off than if they force trade now.. That's a lawsuit on asx as been too long is not part of their policy.
The lack of announcement in tia Is a concern but they are breaching duty by not mentioning positive or negative outcome. It will be interesting to see what they say
NNevertheless, you can see it negative because that's what you want to see. Others can see it positive because of their confirmation bias, I see it as meaningless with the real proof in icc and the headlines thst occur outside of these. Those are known postives leaving only this unsubstantial negative you post here at each announcement with no disclosure on why.
If you continue to see negative please substantiate the text and the reason. Talking to asx is not negative or positive , it'd fact so stop making it sound worse than it factually is
