It COULD have happened that way but I don't think so. Let me...

It COULD have happened that way but I don't think so. Let me give you an example of a technically non-binding agreement that all parties have signed and expect to fulfil.:
Company A signs a contract to sell its cattle to China for $100m, Company B agrees to transport it, Company C agrees to slaughter it and Company D is contracted to distribute the meat. Each company will have conditions to be met that could impact the deal. These could include that Company A provides a minimum number of cattle; that the cattle pass a health check conducted by Chinese inspectors; that the distributor is able to maintain his supply contracts, that 90% of the meat is of x grade; that the transportation takes no longer than x time...and so on. Should Company A announce this contract to the market and do shareholders have a right to know? I would say yes. Now whilst this is just an analogy, consider it in terms of an agribusiness similar to company A in a contract with Invigo, Fresh Supply, MasterCard. This would be a complex agreement with many provisos, probably including confidentiality. Nevertheless, these were SIGNED agreements. Global entities like MasterCard don't waste their time on complex, high value agreements that are unlikely to come to fruition. So should CRO have announced it? Did we as shareholders have a right to know? I would argue a resounding YES. If the ASX think they were erring on the side of caution to protect us from the 'what ifs', I think they have done us a huge disservice. More importantly, the ASX has now set a precedent, so no future similar signed agreements will need to be announced to the market by CRO. Eventually, of course, the revenue from these agreements will be reflected in quarterly reports, but by then, many investors will have sold out because of fear mongering, uncertainty and misinformation. In my opinion, we have all been denied the ability to make an informed decision.