Ann: Suspension from Official Quotation, page-34

Still waiting for someone here to make note of the change of name at the bottom of the page... surely management couldn’t be listening & have decided to keep a certain person’s name out of the spotlight for a moment?

I guess they can now feel relief that holder angst regarding Mr.Bell may lessen- to be replaced with angst/suspicion bordering on anger at the 2 directors who are also directors of a company that has just received work from AUZ.

Some holders here are happy with that- some are not.

The brokerage ( ? Or whatever it is ), that they are directors of will benefit at least by AUZ using them to list ( their company getting an increase in business activity improves the value of that company thereby creating at least the appearance of possible benefit ), - even if all above board it’s still a very bad look.

If they have any kind of performance/turnover related remuneration consideration at the brokerage?
Yikes. ( I’d say that will be the first question the ASX would ask ).

Is it a publicly listed company? If so, do they hold stock? If so, how are they affected by any price appreciation based on getting this job?

Before the six shooters come out I am in no way interring or implying any wrong doing- I am saying that it just doesn’t look good from the outside.

Very often in business it’s the perception of transparency or lack thereof that is crucial.
The sense by the common holder ( are retail or institutional holders number 1 here? ), that things are being done for their benefit as a whole, as part owner of the company, is what counts.

Even the slightest sense that some part owners ( in this case the directors in question ), are being rewarded more than the common holder is a very heavy weight on SP & can also directly affect the relationships or the potential relationships between the company & outside entities- for example SK.

‘Hey- let’s all row together!’ Says the director.
‘Hey- why aren’t you rowing but instead stuffing your face on our emergency rations?!’ Cries the retail holder.

For the sake of a quick $12 million an $80 million deal was torpedoed.
I wonder what this $5 million will ultimately cost?

I’d prefer to see it cost someone their job or some time on the bench than holders any more money.