reading the posts here it appears to me that there is little...

reading the posts here it appears to me that there is little understanding re asx listed companies and how confidentiality works.

confidentiality clauses are for the potential benefit of all parties.

it's all about getting the balance right.

no one, not even a trained lawyer, may always get the balance right in the eyes of a regulator.

from memory there is evidence that ags did and do act professionally in that they sort advice and/or were recommended to disclose (and they did) a legal payment to quasar that wasn't previously disclosed.

on another slant i also remember that i also vented my frustration here when four mile first went into production and i felt as though we were not getting enough updates re production levels at a critical time as start-up info was critical to determine what we had.

ags did increase their level of transparency on that front so i think ags do listen to their shareholders while still respecting confidentiality.

the stockpiling is separate issue.

the "destruction" of ags is linked to monies spent by ags and the stockpiling, this is a given.

but, i can't see why there should not be a regulatory examination of the quasar resources stockpiling decision per se.

how many people here have made an effort to try and understand what the accc is all about and what they do?

going by the lack of discussion here it appears to me that a lot of posters here have very little understanding re matters surrounding australian fair trade laws.

for the record i am not making any accusations of any wrong doing by any party associated with the four mile uranium project. it's not for me to say what is for example fair or unfair.