RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Soon, our town crier (aka Kozmo) will soon be the TTX clown KozmoT wrote: I understand your confusion about what constitutes "Material Information" Its basically considered anything that might affect the public company's shareprice. In the case of assay results although everybody HOPES the results are good there is no expectation that they will be unless it is infill drilling, therefore if results come back "so-so" of a dud it won't affect the shareprice.
if that's the case there's seems to be a lot of grey area. I think the shareprice could be affected whatever the results are.
if
Bad - it gives the insiders knowledge the public doesn't have and they can dump their shres causing the SP to spiral down.
Good - like you said it goes without saying
Anything inbetween Good and Bad is subjective to the shareholder.
if the results aren't as good as i was hoping for then i'm going to unload my shares whereas you may think they are adequate enough to buy more or keep on holding onto to what you have.
What happens in the case where the test results are average but the company decides given the current down price of lithium and the cost of mining and transporting it the project isn't viable and they say we are going to shelve it. Can they TTX determine themselves there's no need to divulge the test. reults because we can't aford to proceed?
However, now (as i said in my previous post) based on AVZ's cost research / DFS report and the price and demand for lithium those previous test results look profitable.
I would imagine they need to go through the whole process again from step 1 (as they are doing now) to make it legit rather than now reintroducing the previous test results (if they have them). I think that would introduce more confusion and unfinished business to say "oops we changed our minds here are the test results".
in addition, the testing equipment could have evolved over the years and can extract a higher % grade of litium which makes the results look better. In which case Tantalex are better off to erase the past and start everything over again. I don't think the security exchange body can argue against that and would allow them a start-over.