Because an appeal of the decision could have kept them in an...

Because an appeal of the decision could have kept them in an indefinite trading halt. Some appeal processes have been known to take an extensive period of time, but I reckon you already know that. So, CRO did the smart thing and sucked it up to ensure they could keep trading. SHOULD they have reported to market? Adrian has just said they felt it was reportable, and he again stated they have SIGNED contracts, but these contracts have 'condition precedents' that the ASX feels makes them not 'material'. I feel there is a lot of leeway in determining what is 'material', and there is certainly disparities in how the ASX determines 'material. For my part, as a shareholder, I believe I have the right to be informed of ALL signed contracts, whether they are binding or non binding, because SIGNED contracts imply intent.