My confusion is this paragraph in the announcement in italics below, and the word I have highlighted in bold "proposed" is the key word."ASXhas advised the Company that it will not permit the suspension in trading ofthe Company’s securities to be lifted until such time as ASX’s concerns withrespect to the affairs of HDY have been resolved to ASX’s satisfaction. ASX hastaken this view as a result of the similarities between the vendors of assetsto HDY and the proposed vendors of assets to the Company. In ASX’s view, the submissionsthat HDY may put to ASX in response to ASX’s letter to HDY of 29 November 2018 (asannounced by HDY on that date) may be relevant to the Company given the similaritiesin the transactions."
My take as non-lawyer
If the VIC transaction is proposed and has not gone ahead why are we in suspension, unless of course there are other transactions that are either 'proposed' or have taken place been also investigated. Note, HDY could be either permanently suspended on the 20th December if don't answer questions to ASX satisfaction or have suspension extended so having VIC tied to HDY presents its own issues. So exactly why is the suspension still in place is my point - if there are no 'implemented' transactions that the ASX has concerns with VIC we should be trading regardless of similarities in board structures and affiliations to HDY. My actual concern is I suspect HDY will have the same view as VIC that they are not related parties, but in HDY's case there current issue the transactions been examaned by the ASX were executed (unlike the CR transaction here which was proposed and not moved forward thanks to ASX early intervention thank God).So what are we missing here and what is VIC not telling us is my point, or is remaining in suspension for VIC an error oversight by the ASX in its pursuit of HDY. Or is VIC remaining in suspension because a course of action the ASX may take is to suspend certain Directors in HDY (and as a result that has spill over effects to VIC). All IMO.
