Here you have been given three very recent examples where news was available but not released. Why do you need five? These are chronologically, the last three newsworthy stories in relation to Biota, but none at all were deemed newsworthy and therefore not announced by Biota. Three in a row is a serious issue.
These stories involved Biota and one other party (except the Biocryst patent dispute, which also involved the US Patent Office as well). These stories were announced by the other party involved in the story (they were deemed newsworthy by the other party).
There are other issues that holders have in relation to Biota that relate to the way news has been released in the past, but let's not go down that route here - that is a totally separate and complex issue if you were to try to address via ASIC/ASX.
If you are happy to pen a letter like some others here, that's great. The fact that you are a short or long termer shouldn't matter if you believe that you could realise better value if Biota management performed their statutory duty - it boils down to whether you feel it is an important enough cause. The very last three examples (in a row) are enough of a precedent.
On a separate note, in addition to their ASX releases area, Biota also have a news & articles area, where, for example, they list investor presentations (the contents of which we holders usually know about).
So these last three announcements are also not even worthy of "news" on the Biota site...
...not ASX release-worthy and not News-worthy...
If Biota management really are about increasing shareholder value (and presumably the SP is an important part of that), why do they refuse to recognise the fact that 110%, release of the above three stories (either individually or collectively):
i/ are material ii/ would have impacted the SP.
It begs the question what other stuff of consequence don't we know about?
BTA Price at posting:
95.5¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
