osr, I meant I don't necessarily agree with forced blanket...

osr,
I meant I don't necessarily agree with forced blanket disclosure of all info.. it would be very hard to force this, given the often evasive/clever/some might say sneaky way that announcements are worded. a lawyers picnic, if you like.

my personal opinion is:
If 'value' claims are made to promote/entice/spruik to the market, then yes I think prompt disclosure (including any component assumptions) is the only way to go, good, bad or ugly.

a good hypothetical example could be like when binbin said in an older argument something like the pfs might be subject to an 'in confidence' arrangement with an associated entity (like mitsu etc)
personally I think that sort of thing is just a little too convenient, but unfortunately probably perfectly legal.

one might be able to argue, that a management with integrity might refuse such an agreement with an associated entity, on the basis that such a ploy contradicts the company line whereby the shareholder will be foremost in terms of disclosure. (ever seen that in a prospectus?)
A win win deal should be able to see a way around this little convenience, in my view.

at any rate, good news always seems to find a way to be told

should hear from new board soon?