The more you read over this document folk's - the more...

The more you read over this document folk's - the more interesting the ' STORY ' becomes.

And like I said before . Apart from the references to Sec. 606 with respects to ' effective control '- The ASX appears to have Bupkis

Here's are some additional reasons which support this view:-

Firstly our multiple response in a number of questions of :- ' The use of the plural form was unintentional.' indicates to me that the ASX is simply clutching at straws here in trying to establish or catch us out in some way as to having knowledge to the reasons for the request from the Vendors for the ' off market ' transfer to these related parties. And at this point it is quite clear the ASX cannot prove or indeed has any specific evidence to this effect.

The second reason I believe they are just grasping at straws is the fact that in my mind it is really an immaterial point to ' nit pick ' over the sign off of a document by Mr. Young for Aceglow Holdings Pty Ltd. Whether it was Aceglow Pty Ltd or Aceglow Holdings Pty Ltd - I would have thought it a rather mute point if the ACN number was in fact identical. Furthermore , we should all know how pedantic Share Registries can be with respect to holdings transfers and certificates.

So I think our response to the ASX question of it being a ' typographical error ' is more than adequate and just highlights to me how trivial most of these matters are as well as re-enforcing the ' Witch Hunt ' thesis.

One other response I really like from the whole Q & A process is the one from Q. 8.2 where we say :-

' As is common in the small cap space in Australia, which is a niche part of the market, most of the brokers, corporate advisors and consultants operating in this space know of each other and have dealt with each other at some point over a number of years. The Company’s view is that the relationship between Mr Young and the Principals of Everblu is no different to any other relationships in this market. '

The best response and the pièce de résistance in my mind or moreover given all the reasons it sets us up perfectly from here when or if we commence trading - so I would then prefer to use the ' plural ' .... in pièces de résistance - is our response from Q. 16 :-

ASX - ' With reference to HDY’s response to question 16 of the Query Letter, why haven’t the shares and options contemplated to be issued to Everblu under the EverBlu Mandate been issued? '

' As indicated in HDY’s prospectus dated 18 July 2017, the issue of these shares and options were subject to shareholder approval. To date, no shareholder app '

So in conclusion, it would seem folks we are now in the box seat having had this whole affair ' laundered ' out in the open air. As a result , I look forward to reading more and seeing how the last chapter in this short novel plays out . My suspicions are that it goes very well for us. Well enough for our BOD to be put on notice that in order to expect our approval on the commissioned Everblu shares - And given it is most likely a good portion of the Vendors won't count.

This should go a long way in my mind to keeping these Guy's honest IMO. Really looking forward to our trading opportunities on this Ladies and Gents....