No, I appreciate that the excerpts you posted are from CYP's corporate governance ann

Good.

So it is specific to CYP, but the issue of disclosure under placements and information asymmetry isn't.
But you brought up the issue of "disclose under placements" and coined the term "information asymmetry" not me.

I am not avoiding anything you are saying but you aren't appearing to recognize the substance of what I'm saying.

Substantively - there are two sorts of disclose obligations under ASX listing rules - continuous (which you are referring to) but also periodic disclosure obligations which I have been referring to in my excerpts above including from the corporate governance statement.

The corporate governance statement put out by CYP each year - I believe I and other shareholders should be able to rely on - so should other shareholders of other companies but they are beside the point here - this is about me as a CYP shareholder having a right to believe the corporate governance statement produced by the company officers and secretary.

That CYP corporate governance statement ann is much like clinical trial result anns and an issue I have read you highlight previously - the ann is a summary/generalisation that glosses over some nuance and specifics
I don't accept the coprorate governance statements from the company officers to the shareholders are alike anything at they are alike in any relevant way - I see in a corporate governance statement approved by a company that I have shares in as making promises to uphold certain standards and values from the company officers to shareholders and potential shareholders.

That some sets of corporate officers of ASX listed entities might routinely lie or deceive their shareholders such that the market has become jaded and cynical does not to my mind in any way absolve the particular company officers of the company I hold shares in of their obligation to be as good as their particular words and as their particular expressed values.

There is a process by which company officers go through an compile those corporate governance statements.If a person takes an oath or makes a promise - that others have broken theirs doesn't absolve the first person. There should be no glossing over of that. Yet that is (a moral gloosing over - hey don't hold poor old CYP officials to their words because its the norm for company officials to not be as good as their words is exactly what I think is the gloosing over that is happening here. Bedger in one of the excerpts I posted said cats out of the bag one day ASIC might do something. But he didn't say he would do anything - it was like watching something happen. You are arguing there are informational asymmetries (I did follow your argument and your links very closely).

I don't want you to gloss over that specific 5.3 comment as being from the cynata company officers - yes I am aware that other companies fill out the same pro forma almost exactly the same way - I checked four of them. The four (not MSB they use a Nasdaq exception) others that were mentioned by revolution earlier in this thread - just to use some random samples for last year.

I am not aware of any other companies doing what CYP did though - which was NOT tell the ASX ahead of providing stuff under their 5.3 comments on their corporate governance statements - so far as I currently no - they are the only one's in my experience and knowledge to have failed in that particular regard.

if you delve into the specifics it contains exceptions. That is a common issue, not just a CYP issue.Let's do just that - though its separate to the issue of a shareholder like me ought be able to rely on the truthfulness of what is provided by the company officers in 5.3 on the periodic disclosures.

CYP's full corporate governance disclosure is here: https://cynata.com/corporate-governance The Continuous Disclosure section alone is a 17 page pdf and notes the exception I posted from the Corporations Regulations in 2.2
Here is section 2.2 which you refer to - and underneath it is section 2.3 which I have been referring to and by the way 2.4 relates to class actions - which could also become relevant.




2.2 is structured such that a) and b) and c) must all be true - and you have made out an argument based on (a) (ii) but I would point out that for an exception to apply to continuous disclose (not periodic) it is also necessary that c) a reasonable person would not expect the information to be disclosed.

Well I read the fact of the public pre-existence of the companies corporate governance statements particularly 5.3 where they (the CYP company officers and secretary) as putting a contraint on what a reasonable person might expect to be disclosed - in that it says "will be releases on the ASX announcement platform ahead of the presentation" as being very constraining upon what a reasonable person would and would not expect under 2.2 (c).

If it is true as you suggest that sophs and brokers don't as a matter of practice keep confidential - or that potential underwriters and merchant banks don't keep things secure in their possession then CYPs directors - being of no more cynicism or realism than you and bedger - and not tell them. And yes that would make it harder to do deals if they could only deal with people they held to a higher standard than you and bedger would expect - but that is the price of keeping their word on 5.3.


I have quite a bit of personal experience now, in my opinion, dealing with the ASX about complaints and breaches of the listing rules. And trying to deal with ASIC.

I am by no means alone in being frustrated and reasonably disappointed in my experience with both those regulators. See 1 and 2.

1)

https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media-release/2024-releases/24-177mr-asic-sues-asx-for-alleged-misleading-statements/

ASIC sues ASX for alleged misleading statements

2)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-01/asic-parliamentary-report-findings-brutal-bragg/104036868

"TheAustralian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) needs a newstructure, a parliamentary inquiry is expected to announce this week,with the inquiry's chair recently describing the organisation'sculture as "very sick" and that its record on enforcementhad made Australia, for some, "a haven for white-collar crime"."

I know that there are civil provisions under the corporations law where individuals can pursue tort remedies in some cases.

I have seen Phi Finney McDonald do more in terms of getting things done - on banking and in relation to Silviu and MSB for instance than I think ASIC could do in the same time. So this gives me interest in the viability of class actions as better paths than ASIC complaints and ASX listing rule complaints.

But at absolute bottom is a moral concern - retail aussie shareholders ought not have to be in markets where informational asymmetries as you describe them are fundamentally unfair and harmful to the effective operating of the market.