@parker11 The only one that I had anything to do with when served a 249D,
never went into a trading halt until a corporate review commenced after the financials were found to be out of order, they were that bad that the company eventually went from a trading halt to a suspension whilst the corporate review was being conducted.
Sequence of events:
30/1 Company issued with a 249D -
NOT price sensitive
15/2 Notice of general meeting -
NOT price sensitive
27/2 Notice of becoming a substantial holder notice (collectively the RM's) -
NOT price sensitive
22/3 Board changes and General Meeting cancelled -
NOT price sensitive
30/3 Ceasing to be a substantial holder (RM's) -
NOT price sensitive
4/4 Corporate Review -
Price sensitive
27/4 Trading Halt -
Price sensitive - pending an announcement pending an update on internal corporate reorganisation & review
27/4 Board Changes -
NOT Price sensitive
1/5 Suspension from offical quotation -
Price sensitive - pending an announcement relating to the internal corporate review
2/5 Update on preliminary finding of internal corporate review -
NOT price sensitive
5/5, 29/6 Updates on suspension -
NOT price sensitive
16/8 Finding of Corporate Review -
NOT price sensitive
30/8 Reinstatement to offical quotation -
Price sensitive
As you can see, issuing a 249D doesn't attract a trading halt or is it price sensitive.
No you are not reading it correctly, re: GPP's financials. You were suggesting that GPP would go into a extended period of suspension based on no facts but an assumption there was problems with their financials and basically fear mongering other readers of the GPP's threads.
Yes, I do know what a 249D is, and again, your assumptions that GPP will suffer the same extended period in suspension is without any facts. You failed to mention the extent of the other company's internal state of affairs, non conformance to corporate governance, tax issues both here and in Mali, the issuing of shares to themselves (old board of directors), issues with tenement contracts, and trying to sell off a Lithium project that was a pittance of what it is going to be worth, etc.
As for the company announcements, nope they have bumbled their way through them on numerous occasions to the point that they have to issue amendments, so no I don't think they are correct .....
As you can see, that other company continued to remain listed on the ASX and trading pending a meeting for a board take over, so it isn't so unbelievable at all now is it????
"Au contraire" it wasn't an apology, it was a suggestion for you ........
Just for your amusement: Note the
lack of a price sensitive symbol !!!!!!
View attachment 1151766
cheers
