fillerina, page-31

David, I hope I will find the time to reply to the other post you have made with regards to my opinion about publishing your suspicions prior to verifying them beyond reasonable doubt. As I have more than a dozen things to say about it, and thus would need a few hours time to write everything down, this is a task I may have to postpone for a while due to other obligations.

Back to the discussion, a quick look at architectsofskin.com.au shows that they were established in May 2015.
It is within reason to assume that they started out with their business after having pocketed several product distribution licenses, among which very likely was Fillerina.

Now, if Labo's policy is to make 3 + 2 year contracts, and if Avention/AoS started their agreement with Labo in May 2015, then the 3 year period would run out at the end of this month, with Cellmid simply "taking over".

Some may find it harsh to see Labo give their distribution deal to someone else and not inform their current partner about ongoing negotiations with other potential partners. However, Labo may have seen the need to wait until the ink had dried under the contract, and none of us know if, who, and when anyone was informed. Regardless, quite frankly, this is none of Cellmid's business and rather Labo's. I believe that Labo simply chose not to extend the contract with Avention after a deal with Cellmid was on the horizon. Such negotiations would potentially be highly confidential, so Labo may not have had any chance to actually inform AoS.

Others have stated that the announcement could have been made later, after informing AoS of the discontinuation of their agreement. However, I would like to remind everyone of the fact that there are listing rules, and one of them is Continuous Disclosure. Under this rule, Cellmid would indeed have to announce any such agreement immediately.

https://www.asx.com.au/documents/rules/Chapter03.pdf