Ann: ASX Update on Suspension, page-197

Hi Gattertop,

Your key points don't seem to me to add ups as you conclude.

firstly there are many companies that don't list the names of companies they sign contracts with and if some clients don't want their names spelled out then it becomes a matter of confidentiality. You question of ASX is quite appropriate and it shows clearly, to me anyway, that Asx were aware of ISX statement and did not consider this to be a breach of any regulation else they should have taken action at the time the Ann. was made.

secondly, sections 9 and 10 are merely juggling 'what if' scenarios to try to justify their suspicion the ISX were dodgying the figures. ASX had access to these for 2 years so again, why didn't ASX present a letter of Query at the time? As I discuss with Hingdog, suspicion is inadequate a reason to use such extreme measures on a co. and to wait 2 years before addressing the suspicion while ignoring other companies with clear evidence and admissions of breaching regulations in a major manner is clearly inequitable and justifies ISX SOC against the suspension.

As yet we don't know what ASIC are doing in regard ISX... we only have ASX word on this. Yet if ASIC are investigating, I trust they will not act on suspicion and will act promptly on evidence. I for one would welcome ASIC action if they find evidence of misdealings and dodgy figures, but as yet there is no news on this.

lastly auditing of ISX records and transactions should have alerted the ASX to any false financial statements. I doubt that any auditor would sign off on a company's records if there was a suspicion of falsified records. The auditor would have complete and open access to all financial records and would need to be satisfied that all records were accurate. This removes the suspicion for me and should provide adequate source of assurance for the ASX... unless of course they suspect the auditor was complicit, then they would go after the auditor first.

thanks for your considered opinion. and if you think I've got this wrong please respond.

Scott.