question of the day, page-99

my personal opinion on the side of ethics is that ECT should have informed the market prior to , or on may 30th 2013.

a key component of initial deal struck with monash in 2012 referred to may 2012 as a key date for funds to have changed hands.

imo management: irrespective of obligations to keep tight lipeed about grant process, most definitely owed the market further comment on the subject prior to may passing.

their document on 1st march infers greyness of possible change of terms. but the other hand has permitted in the minds of holders to continue to rest their lorals on the may 2013 mth for funds to change hands.

funds did not in fact change hands between monash and ECT in the timeframe leading to may 2013. imo they are obligated to make clear explanation of such to market irrespective of grant process. they are 2 separate issues.

and most definitely imo I see no reason at all how commenting on the monash situation is or was to have any affect on the grant outcomes, or in no way doing so would be any breech of the govt tight lipped requirements throughout the grant application process.

I would suggest those in contact with management at ECT approach them most directly to illuminate such.

cheers.