Are you sure this is an accurate statement of your position on...

Are you sure this is an accurate statement of your position on MEP (and otherwise)? Refer post on the MEP forum from yesterday "not held":



I would respectfully suggest that caveating your various posts to make it clear that they are your opinion only rather than fact might be prudent, particularly where you are suggesting in effect that JM is straying into dangerous territory vis-a-vis continuous disclosure obligations or outright breaching those obligations:

• "... JM to do as he pleases without the constraints of a continuous disclosure committee/minder..." and: "If the ASX were any use, he'd get pinged, so thank your lucky stars they are not". Please refer us to the authorities on which you rely in making that unequivocal statement.
• "I would love to see the legal advice that it can't be released during a takeover. That's absolute bollocks because continuous disclosure rules mean it HAS to be" - again, I call on you to refer us to the authorities and provisions on which you rely on making this unequivocal statement. And by that I mean want you to refer me to the exact sections of the rules and legislation, and the names of the case law authorities, and explain in precise terms the basis of your assertion with reference to the same. Presumably you had these to hand when you made these comments?
• And that law-suits may be in the wings: "Not lawsuits about the deal - about continuous disclosure breaches in general". I repeat what I have stated above.

Lest one were to stray into dangerous territory themselves or be seen to engaging in mischievous posting.