Looks like we're interpreting the listing rules differently. I...

Looks like we're interpreting the listing rules differently.

I think the rules are quite clear.

The company goes into a trading halt pending an announcement.

They can't announce in the time period which apply to trading halts, so they ask for a suspension of one week, pending the same announcement.

They still can't announce, so they ask for two further one weekly suspensions, pending the same announcement.

By your interpretation of the Rules, they could just indefinitely request one weekly suspensions, and the market just has to shut up and wait?

That makes no sense, and it certainly doesn't comply with a listed company's disclosure obligations.

FYI, disclosure obligations are continuous, even during trading halts and suspensions.

Asking for a week at a time implies that an announcement is imminent. If they then keep asking for further weekly suspensions, then naturally that raises questions about the delay.

The Rules say they must address those questions.

If the deal is genuine they can easily explain the delay without breaching confidence or jeopardising the deal. The market update is an example of this.