Utopian's gripe isn't about the entire announcement Pro, he is...

Utopian's gripe isn't about the entire announcement Pro, he is only referring to the last two entries in the 2-3 pages. (From memory) they were on about September 12-13, and the first of a couple of negative announcements came on October 2.

In those 2 days David Reed sold (again, from memory) 1 million shares at 48c, less then 3% of his holding and something like 5 months after his previous sale. Utopian believes that it is 'suss' that David Reed sold 3% of his holding 3 weeks before that first negative announcement. That's it in a nutshell. He thinks there's a significant possibility that David Reed committed a crime, because 'accidentally' seeing someone's computer screen or a note jotted on the dining room table and using that info to invest or divest is a crime.

I believe Utopian is the only person that thinks David Reed may have committed a crime, but I could be wrong. I don't think anyone could rationally suggest that a director selling 3% of his holding at ANY time is committing a crime, but Utopian thinks that David Reed's selling behaviour is, to quote him, "suss a.f.".