Please don't get me wrong... I'm all for keeping those in charge accountable, and in favour of continuous disclosure. However, with the way the ASX continuous disclosure regulation is written, companies can easily hide behind the "exception" to the rules. So, the debate seems to be less about the legalities and more about the obligation to all shareholders to disclose efficacy data (and not just the Top SH who we know PH would converse with).
This according to Grok's interpretation:-
I would welcome an update on the efficacy data but based on the ASX exception rule about materiality and partnership obligations, I'm not expecting it necessarily, until at least mid-year. All I am pointing out is whether further clinical activity from a trial expecting to deliver exactly that from two approved drugs and CORE NK is deemed material enough to disclose in the eyes of the ASX. Incremental efficacy from CORE NK above the SOC is all that is needed for CORE NK to be considered a worthy therapy. To extrapolate a definitive conclusion from incomplete data (ie. not a proper interim dataset) may not be considered material... albeit it hasn't stopped the company from lodging anns reporting on clinical responses before.
As you have experienced, getting the ASX and/or ASIC to even acknowledge complaints about anything in the market is virtually impossible. But as the continuous disclosure rules convey, shareholders need to accept that it involves trust in management. So, I'll concede that the optics on that front are not great especially when presented in the manner that you have. It probably is something that needs to be highlighted. And governance is about ethics and communicating to
all shareholders not just a select few, so that they too can make informed decisions about their investment. Ok., so I'm slowly coming around to your way of thinking... but as for the word used by Rebecca about an update being "shortly" which was months ago, that should have been taken with a pinch of salt... it is the biotech sector.
The BS on both sides of the fence I refer to is the bending of the rules, the use of every tool possible to garner a buck and the calibre of comments that get posted on HC by posters who are supposedly holders, such as "the company deserves liquidation" and "Yes give a sheet management more money to waste on crap...." If PH does indeed have complete disregard for shareholders, then its no wonder with shareholders like that.
