todays age article, page-3

It is my understanding that the complaintant in this matter is/was a senior female public servant.

How the DPP were convinced to proceed with a prosecution and then later drop the case at the last minute defies logic. I hope the complaintant is satisfied with the damage she has done to ordinary Australians though tarnishing the image of a public company.

Damaging reports have been listed on the ASIC website on 3 occasions. As yet there is no mention on their website that the charges have been dropped. Why was Mark Pallisters name made public with such scandalous charges when obviously the evidence was flimsy. It is disgraceful and I would think he would be entitled to damages as should shareholders of QTK who traded at the time this occurred and lost money through this debacle.