IMO MS had every right to communicate carefully via e-mail, in...

IMO MS had every right to communicate carefully via e-mail, in the same way that companies talk to the media all the time about happening events.

However, if he made claims or implied things – via announcements or those e-mails – that have not come to pass, shareholders have every right to use those e-mails in any practical way.

Sungar said “Im quite sure if the SP was 40 cents you would NOT of mentioned or shared any of these emails and wouldn't have complained.”

Probably right, but that’s because if the SP was 40c the information would have been correct – no money lost and nothing to be upset about. Sungar, these guys are ticked off because they feel lead astray.

Looks to me like MS’s e-mails may be very important. CVI are very careful with wordings in their anns. Words like “plans” in the $1.1b ann, mean that you can’t do much about it when it didn’t happen (although ASX ann should not have slipped through written like that IMO). It does seem that these e-mails are a little less careful.

Received e-mails do work in the courts. Some here have questioned authenticity of originator, but don’t worry. The only way for that to work is for MS to actually say “I never wrote that”. And then if an IT expert proves he did, then he’s got a brand new and even bigger problem. For those types of reasons people don’t usually lie to the courts about things they have written.

S