Why is it easier to mistrust ISX in the absence of proof then it is to trust?, page-34

1. ISX said it was "not privy to the ownership" which is a stretch. They could have said many other things but this is the path they went down.
The LHC example doesnt hold water. Sub holders are public and required, if you're the biggest entity on the register of course its visible. It doesnt matter if you hold your shares through Commsec, UBS or a Private Offshore Entity. There is no expectation of privacy when you buy/own a significant stake in a listed entity.
As mentioned before its also very relevant when calculating free float considerations and eligibility for index inclusion.
On the other hand if Hostplus lists its members that's a clear breach as there is an expectation of privacy there.

2. It was maintained right up till the ASX questioning. On its own perhaps it's insignificant, but taken in conjunction with the entire picture..

3. Innocent unless proven guilty, but most innocent parties don't take so long to clear. Nor do they sue while being investigated.

4. Its a bit rich considering ISX slams out the SoC as gospel yet fought tooth and nail to prevent the market from learning of the ASX's response.
I do not consider either SoC or SoR to be unbiased but the very act of trying to gag the latter does not bode well.
If it's all BS why not welcome the chance to show it to the market and crush it in court? Why waste time and money with an injunction rather than a speedy resolution and restatement to quotation?