RE: Times article15 May 2024 16:50
They did ask the company for comment hence why HARL was quoted in the original article saying it was “inaccurate speculation” (the last paragraph in the article).
Which begs the question, if HARL knew that this was going to drop (would have been given a few hours to comment at least, but probably overnight), why they weren’t they quicker off the mark with the RNS.
If you’re not ahead of the story, whatever is published becomes truth. The Mail have now published similar, all based on the original Times story. Not sure about sacking the board but time to sack the advisors.