NZ company - tissue repair product, page-8

That's an interesting little "fact" Tim. This is what TIS said to shareholders on 28/11/2012:

Question: Why was Medical Device Rule 8 chosen for the regulatory submission instead of Device Rule 13? Answer: Classification of VitroGro® ECM as a Class III Medical Device under Rule 8 was determined by the Notified Body and advised to Tissue Therapies Ltd. This decision by the Notified Body was based on precedents whereby other devices with similar modes of action had previously been classified under Rule 8.

Do you have any evidence to support your "fact"? It seems to say TIS lied to shareholders. I hope for your sake you can back up your assertion.

Rev