question of the day, page-98

the ann of 1st march if one is to read its detail several times over:

*indicates monash sought a CHANGE of terms to previous contract

*indicates ECT without making any clear decisions at that time appeared to be open to a change of terms.

*indicates no timeline assurances of when ECT would update the market about its position on the proposed contract amendments.

*infers that ECT is more concerned about long term financing post govt grant result then the immediate 6mill and terms/timelines previously struck.

imo, the present failing in regards to ECT mgmt, was to not clearly inform the market of its clear timelines of when it would definitively make decision on the proposed contract amendments of monash. the reason for the shareholder angst is:

"The Board advised shareholders that it would need time to consider the revised offer and has
since worked with Monash to come to agreement, mindful of the approval window for Resolution 6
expiring on 28 February 2013 (yesterday).
Despite extensive endeavours to resolve matters with Monash by yesterday’s expiry, several key
matters remain outstanding."

THE DOCUMENT THEN GOES ON TO LIST KEY MATTERS OUTSTANDING.


the angst shareholders are observed to have at this time is the ECT board have listed a possible change of terms at 1st march, but 3.5mths later they have not made any further direct comment on those items. the debate imo on hc should be more specific and more direct. are they oblidged to inform the market of clearer timelines or resultants of the monash considered contract change prior to grant decision or not? should they be expected to do so in terms of ethics/law or not?

a lot of posters here are talking about the expectation of alot of funds from monash according to the first agreement mentioned 2012. but have they also taken into consideration the march 1st ann and greyness that it contains about possible changes to terms?