I have not accused anyone of deliberately misleading...

I have not accused anyone of deliberately misleading shareholders, I've only questioned whether or not the reporting of exploration results was within the proper realms of the JORC code of reporting. I relied on statements made in the JORC2012 Appendix of the announcements and those statements let me down. Maybe some of those statements should have been omitted or further qualified. Also I assumed that any visible sopdumene of economic grade would easily be estimated by visual inspection of the core samples. After all a 1% Li2O grade represents a spodumene grade of ~8%, so you would imagine a trained geologist would be able to estimate the Li grade with a reasonable degree of accuracy by inspecting the diamond drill core (the spodumene crystals would occupy ~8% of the mass of the rock/core in this case and other Li minerals would also be visible). If the sopdumene is easy to identify as I believe it is (I still need to approach the experts in this field to establish the veracity of this assumption) I think I or anyone else could quickly be trained to estimate its grade in core samples. If the spodumene is easy to identify in core as I suspect, that leads you to wonder why the significance of these cores wasn't more carefully explained to shareholders in the first place. In any case this is not the issue I plan to pursue.

The issue is this.

I've asked the company when the assay results were received and they were not prepared to disclose this information. In the absence of this disclosure all I want to do is get a lawyer to see if they can ask ASX to get the company to disclose this information as it is important to understanding what has happened here and whether or not the directors acted promptly enough when they came into possession of the market sensitive information. They had a duty under ASX listing rules to maintain an orderly market for the stock whilst in possession of the market sensitive information and I want to first discover if they acted within that duty. The question if people were illegally and criminally trading with inside information and who those people might have been is far more complex and first requires the facts to be established as to when the sensitive information came into the company's or anyone else's possession.

What's more I'd warn people about launching unfounded accusations against the directors on these threads. What I want is just a few answers. A class action would require significant facts and evidence to be established first (and assets or insurance policies to claim against) and the only people capable of eliciting such facts are the regulators, if they deem the circumstance warrant it. As I said without a significant and well articulated complaint from shareholders the chance of the regulators acting to answer the questions here are low. Esh