News: VUL Stellantis in lithium supply deals with California, German firms -sources, page-23

I think this is their problem, though:

1. Is the issuer [VUL] aware of anything information concerning it that has not been announced to the market which, if known by some in the market, could explain the recent trading in its securities?

2. If the answer to question 1 is yes:a) Is the issuer relying on Listing Rule 3.1A not to announce that information under Listing Rule 3.1? Please note that the recent trading in the issuer’s securities would suggest to ASX that such information may have ceased to be confidential and therefore the issuer may no longer be able to rely on Listing Rule 3.1A.

If the Reuters report - which has now been widely republished, albeit unsourced - creates a hike in demand and a run on the share price on Monday, which I think is a reasonably foreseeable event, then ASX will issue a price query along the above lines and VUL will have to respond. It clearly will need to say yes if the substance of the Reuters report is correct. Noting too that it has already had the beginnings of a run at the end of last week and there’s probably too many loose units (advisors, consultants etc) involved to keep information like this tightly held and maintain complete confidentiality.

To my mind there is no chance that all parties involved haven’t comprehensively prepared for the possibility (high likelihood) of this ‘leaking’ and I think they will want to be ahead of the game and proactively manage it before the market opens - even if that means heavily downplaying the MoU if it is extremely conditional - and thus avoiding a price query from ASX. They have had plenty of time since Friday night to prepare their Reuters response strategy now, and I cannot see how they would want to go into a trading halt for this (substantive negotiations with Stellantis based on an MoU will be months away if not year-long) unless it’s to give Stellantis time to announce something first. Normally I wouldn’t expect Stellantis to announce it was a party to an MoU to meet their own market disclosure requirements - they probably enter them all the time with dozens of parties. But in a relative sense (particularly in relation to its potential to impact share price) the materiality of this one is quite huge for VUL and I just don’t see how they can avoid making a statement to the market while speculation runs rife, even if Stellantis doesn’t.

TLDR/: it’s material for VUL and it’s no longer confidential (if the Reuter’s report is correct).

Just my 2c worth, others may have a different view, good luck to old holders and a warm welcome to the new ones!