Future Valuation, page-90

Actually - it might not be considered insider trading 'sq' (snigger quietly)

At a public meeting it is not unreasonable for a company representative to declare, "... we expect to deliver a further announcement on X and Y within the next week". It depends on the context, it depends on what was actually said etc. In any event, the information has to be shown to have had or be likely to have had an affect on the value of the securities of the company (or financial product). Having said that - I do not think it would be good practice.

Nonetheless, if they said that they were going to issue an announcement by next Tuesday but did not disclose the contents of that announcement then there is no offence under the Corporations act (2001). Seriously, who would trade on the fact that an announcement would be delivered without knowing the contents of that announcement?

In effect, a prosecuting authority would need to prove that:
(a) A person was in possession of information which was, or is likely to have, or had, a material impact on the value of the company securities (or other financial product) that is able to be traded on a financial market).
(b) A person knew, or ought to have reasonably known, (standard of the reasonable person) that the information is not, or was not, available to the market.
(c) A person (or their agent) were actually trading in that particular financial product, or that a person or their agent told someone else about the information and they knew that the other person was going to, or did trade, in the securities of a company (or other financial product).

I note that you concluded with 'lol'. I would not, if I were you, be too quick to laugh out loud at anyone particularly when the facts are not known and one's understanding of the topic (insider trading) is limited.

Just my view and this comment is not to be construed as advice of any kind whatsoever.