So folks - Under General Rule 3.1 relating to ASX continuous...

So folks - Under General Rule 3.1 relating to ASX continuous disclosure. It states that once an entity becomes ' aware of any information concerning it that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the price or value of the entities securities , the entity must immediately tell the ASX that information '. I note that sec 677 ( namely 674 & 675 ) of the Corporations Act supports this by stating that a reasonable person would expect information to have a ' material effect ' as one that influence a person who commonly invest in securities in deciding whether or not to subscribe for , or buy or sell , the first mentioned securities.

And while many of the points under the General Rule 3.1 relate to Acquisitions and Disposals, termination of agreements , becoming a plaintiff and/ or defendant in a legal material law suit , material variations to earnings , appointment of a liquidator or administrator , any material change to the entities activities , under or over subscriptions and proposed issues of securities - right thru to receiving a notice of intent to make a takeover offer . These situations pretty much summarize most of the general issues covered under General Rule 3.1

However there are some Exceptions to the Rule. Namely where it would be in breech of the Law to disclose the information ( not likely in either of VIC or HDY cases ) , the information is trade secret ( again not likely ) , the information contains matters or supposition or is insufficient to warrant disclosure ( not likely in these instances ) , the information is generated for internal management purposes of the entity ( not applicable since both are in suspension ) , or the information concerns an incomplete proposal or negotiation - More likely applicable to HDY than VIC as they have stated it as a capital raising and acquisition.

I would think HDY's is more to do with the terms of the acquisition and clarification as to the intent of it being interpreted by the authorities and as I have said in my earlier posts - it being a reverse takeover. It would not be surprised if we are in the throws of a more detailed please explain from ASIC vis-a vis the TOV review panel etc.... After all why should our share price under this situation in effect actually fall 25% to .003 when indeed the combined controlling holders exceed the 20% takeover provisions. So where is the premium I would ask for ordinary shareholders in this deal , and why is the SP trading below the controlling stakeholders entry price. Is this indeed a FALSE market in the securities of the entity - which would be another reason for a please explain.

Only my opinion folks , however these provisions to the rules would go along way in explaining both VIC and HDY's current circumstances. Once again , have another great weekend......