TU...an almost strategic 'forget' on the lung cancer info... but...

TU...

an almost strategic 'forget' on the lung cancer info... but info nonetheless

kbear1 thanks again for taking the time.

the issue of the nasdaq is taxing on management and shareholders alike - in my previous roles i would have sought to conduct matters quite differently, but different heads are holding the keel, for the time being..

while I was out for a walk a day or two ago a couple of thoughts forced some thinking into me..

as a lawyer, i do not understand the legal advice being received by management atm to say nothing about the listing - an update would not be any form of a blocking move towards the SEC in my legal opinion.. so i thoroughly reject the current 'legal advice', and prefer to conjecture that this is a made-up reason being given by management.. because they don't know or/and want to be able to say No to a listing if the environment looks less than conducive ... (if the latter, start hearing big consultant fees running down the drain, and instos downrading PRR...)...

(for the Mods - an Australian company with 20 or less employees only can 'seek' to sue for lible or defamation, amongst other enourmous hurdles... - i otherwise do not write libel, nor defame..)

my other thought was this - "PRR management, please man-up and otherwise treat the investment community like you would like to be treated like, and speak... to the retail and professional community who you faced to take 10s of millions of dollars from recently, and give usall equally an update about the nasdaq project, which project was used to obtain a lot of money from everyone recently, who thought the nasdaq dual listing was just around the corner..."

and under the TPA Act, a holder with my background knows the recquired form of pleadings required to ask our authorities to start looking into the matter of the general CR.. and why not?

PRR is otherwise the only company in my corporate legal experience that is using a strange and unknown legal reason to NOT communicate with shareholders, even to the extent of providing an update - which, in and of itself, concerns me.. this unnamed legal reason, by itself and the ensuing silence, could right now, be raising an actual legal liability (should the 'silence' reasons being shown ill-conceived), thereby creating just more real legal uncertainty, let alone potentially enourmous legal costs...

umm... this ain't America, (in so far as legal are conducted, atm), so why is the company apparently prepared to go down that road of uncertainty, seemingly hiding behind whispered meeting notes, and no professional market notes, still..

..so management.. it is rather simple - we are Australians... let alone what seems to have been lost.. we are the legal owners of the company - and yes manegement, we small retail (non) 'clients' can actually raise a stink - HEADLINES - when needs be, so reasonably, just...

TALK - we are grown ups, in our 30s and 50s and 60s -

TALK to us with the respect with deserve - with the respect you seek fromothers - and, we own the company, after all..

if you don't TALK to us, then a very strong campiagn will begin, seeking that any proper number of you are not elected next round, where those not relected shall be out, and therefore missing out, on all the many easy entitlements currently available to you - entitlements given to you, for doing the right thing, only






good luck