They're really putting the boot in now., page-23

You obviously didn't bother to read the commentary by Steinpreis and Paganin Lawyers. They are a well known commercial law firm that specialise in the stockmarket.

The ASX can demand to see the actual contract rather than just approve the ASX announcement.

In fact EDE only made a correction because several individuals made written complaints to the ASX. EDE still made no mention of the fact the SPI had no apparent way to pay for any Edencrete or that there was no obligation for them to do so. So the contract was effectively worthless. Not one gallon of Edencrete has been purchased by SPI since the announcement.

Ramping announcements can take many forms, but ASX is particularly concerned about announcements in relation to material contracts or transactions that do not disclose key information investors and their professional advisers reasonably need to understand the materiality of the contract or transaction and to assess its impact on the price or value of the entity’s securities. Entities will need to be particularly careful in relation to contracts to ensure that the announcement:

• complies with the criteria set out in section 4.15 of GN 8 including naming counterparties properly and explaining the nature of the contract and significance to the entity;
• clearly outlines the status of the agreement – whether it be a non-binding heads of agreement, framework or initial contract only;
• does not contain superlative and exuberant language on the “material” nature of the contract when plainly it is not; and
• includes updated information wherea previously announced material customer contract has not proceeded or has been terminated.