Value of Deal, page-489

I agree it was poorly worded, however rather than being a "subtle play" I would call it flouting securities law.

It was their clear intent to communicate a deal was imminent in that timeframe, we did not give the timeframe, they (LFS) did and HUM have done nothing to correct it.

If someone said "we're going to buy BHP" and then followed up a few weeks later saying, "negotiations are going well, definitive agreement are expected to be signed by the end of the week" do you not think BHP might make a statement about that, do you not think the ASX would like to have an update about that?

Given that the expectation has been given to the market and a timeframe provided, it is absolutely IMO required to give an update, it could be as simple as "whilst we have missed our initial expectations around timeframes for finalizing an agreement, negotiations are ongoing and we look forward to updating the market once negotiations have concluded" or even just "no agreement has been reached"

Very easy to make clear and factual announcements, again, just another example of some idiots getting paid too much for no particular reason.