@tendoji .....
The ASX has not played 'tough' on WFE at all.
WFE wanted to change direction, so just did it in total disregard of the listing rules they had signed up to.
WFE could have, and IMHO should have, asked the ASX for 'in principle advice' before signing any documentation about a change of direction. WFE chose not to!!
The path WFE chose was one without any evidence of possible success. There were no Independent Expert reports to show the plan was a viable one. You and other shareholders seem to think this is not necessary, but to raise funds it is very relevant.
It was the plan of WFE to operate the plant, the ASX basically said 'fine, show us the documentation that gives you permission to operate it', before allowing them to relist with the new plan.
It was not just a 'concern' of the ASX, without that license WFE had a significant likelihood it would fail to meet ASX listing requirements!
Where you will find the answers that the fault did not lie with the ASX is by looking through the listing rules for entities that have a significant change of activities and the associated guidance notes.
https://www.asx.com.au/documents/rules/gn12_changes_to_activities.pdf
In my previous post, I asked why WFE didn't ask for 'in principle advice' before they took the path they did. It is as clear as day in the ASX guidance notes that companies should do this.
WFE chose NOT to. They asked for in principle advice AFTER changing direction.
That is NOT the fault of the ASX!!!
The other aspect you are overlooking is that WFE never tested the ASX. WFE made the decision to not go ahead. In the end they were not rejected by the ASX at all!!
