Big Crossing, page-118

I agree with you. I was chatting with a few likeminded last week about this. We came to conclusion ASIC is supposedly there to maintain market integrity (among many other things). Although theses reviews are nothing out of the norm, and usually carried out away from the public domain, ASIC cannot possibly believe this has not impacted the market therefore impacted integrity. We concluded that as soon as it became apparent it was a big job the stock should have been place on suspension pending the outcome.

ASIC, whether they believe or not, have efed the hands that fed them the information in the first place. After all the dust has settled and we are running the business like clockwork I would like to see Slater use its legal muscle to challenge this whole episode. They have the necessary contacts to investigate trading behaviour and they have the legal nous to sift through the corporations Act to bring some to justice.

ASIC may say it is down to the company to request a suspension from the ASX, we haven't. A degree of comfort is in the knowledge that ASIC must be across everything there is to know about S&G by now. If there was something material ASIC would be in contravention of the Corporations Act (I believe) if they didd't bring that to the attention of S&G something they know is material that the market should be aware of.