Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

SP1

Click for more information

0.00%

$1.07 southern cross payments ltd

Ann: ASX Update on status of ASX Directions, page-487

First 487 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
NashaNasha

1,967 Posts.

1973

30/07/20

17:36

Post #: 46192976
Share

Originally posted by Scott th Ratbag: ↑

From 1) well-intentioned naivety (the sublime) to 2) the villainous entrapment of a potential competitor (the ridiculous)... the two opposite ends of the continuum.

Thanks @aes411 - you stimulate my imagination with this... but my imagination is already fertile enough all the same. Theres too little accurate info to make any real sense of ASX activity on this range of issues.

The initial reason being SP volatility - prob an excuse at first, similar to a police charge on the most likely offence to give reason to hold the "suspect" - and on to the PSs, which ASX approved after SH votes supported the PS, which were held in escrow for the 12 months and still not sold... all really very vague reasons for suspension.

Fishing Queries failed to secure some crime or significant irregularity so ASX release their SOR full of vague insinuations and suspicions, roundly criticised by Davies, J.. "Questions to be answered" (loose paraphrase) of ASX SOR - evidence of malicious intent(?)

I.E. Agreed scope attempted by ASX to add issues (Visa) not stated in the original reason for ASX directing such I.E. assessment and finally rejection of the Exec Summary and demand to receive the full report - now this. I propose, would be contrary to contractual arrangement as ISX was CU client and so commercial in confidence issues would bar ASX from access to the full report, especially given suspicions that ASX would leak the report to AFR.

The ASX work on this provides adequate support to both your hypotheses.

ISX, on the other hand, started with full responses to Query Letters yet when these looked increasingly like fishing ISX became reluctant to provide full answers. Again commercial in confidence cited, prob with good reason.

SOC and legal action commenced and non-cooperation resulted... hence increased interest from ASX.

Legal proceedings - interlocutory hearing resulted in 1:nil yet I suspect that ISX positioned ASX with this a) to allow further time for developing case arguments and b) giving ASX enough rope. The judgement revealed that SOR had dubious rationale and no real evidence so score adjusted to bill all draw.

The most recent hearing seemed to result in cementing Davies J. position, possibly siding with ISX... I only read the commentary so I think I'm prob wrong on this as I missed much of the dialogue... are there any reports available to us to give a greater depth understanding of the hearing result? More commentary by direct audience?

Where there is a polar distinction between possible understandings of a given scenario, I've often found that the truth is somewhere in between. My limited understanding suggests that there is some real reasoning behind ASX's actions to date, yet the serious aspersions cast on Kevin Lewis' motivations certainly favours a personal attack hypothesis as well as supporting the competition hypothesis.

ASX have made much of the ASIC investigation, yet we've had no word from ASIC regarding their interest. All we truly have is ASX word that ASIC are investigating and in-the-loop. I've no doubt ASIC are very interested and possibly investigating ASX actions as much as ISX. Certainly they've had sufficient notices from ISX holders to trigger such investigation. ASIC would also have all material that ASX have gathered and would likely form a similar opinion to Davies J.

I don't suppose that we will truly understand the motives of ASX until at least the final court run... Yet motives are only part of the problem and certainly ASX responses to each unfolding attempt to garner more info from ISX indicates that there is a cold determination to find information that they "know" is there (deep suspicion rather than knowledge).

The real issue is before the court. I have confidence in the legal system and in Davies J., perhaps this is more due to the fact that her honour has seemingly sided with ISX yet this is itself a danger as it may leave the perception of bias and therefore give ASX grounds for appeal.

This will be a longer road than appeared previously. I consider that ISX may have created the conditions to make delisting a necessity (what do you think of this @NashaNasha) as much as ASX have done. If both co.s are working toward the same end (delisting), perhaps ISX should apply to delist sooner rather than later? only a thought as yet not seriously considered...

All only IMO

I'm looking forward to reading thoughts on this... Scott.

Expand

Scott, the ASX has so many different options that allow them to keep ISX suspended. Even if ISX meets the 4 requirements there is a high probability they would say they are happy to relist once ASIC give them the all-clear. This is their charter, they are a private entity. If you were running a private dividend business which was making 100's of millions a year profit, would you risk $50-$100m in fines and a slap on the hand for getting it wrong to protect billions in profits? I know I would

How does a bank get billions in fines, break the law, in court with Austrac, ASIC, you name it, all C levels removed and even had OM right a report saying it's a great investment and the board should be praised yet not a suspension or a compliance & disclosure review? They knew of what was brewing when they did their $2b cap raise but didn't disclose it from what I understand. Happy to be corrected here.

No, I do not think ASX is treating ISX fairly, No I do not think ASX will remove the suspension. No I do not see us delisting any time soon UNLESS ISX gets a big win in court from evidence or a new development which causes a nightmare for the ASX

ASIC is the key here, no ASIC no change. I still want to know at which point does 7.2.16 come into play considering ISX is building a competing product? Or does the fact that they are suspended mean they get no protection at all because of accusations made by ASX?

It's messy, it's tiresome, and I think we are over it all. Someone give us the truth that's all we have been waiting for over the last 10 months. I will back our thug (smartest thug I have met I must say) until the end. What do we have to lose not backing him if the shares are suspended?

ISX Price at posting: $1.07 Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
30 Upvote

6 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

BHP

BHP dips as WA nickel suspended after A$6B hit; losses eased by US CPI and forewarning

SKS

SKS Technologies wins US$90M award to supply power to international hyperscale data centre in Melbourne

Bitcoin investors need to know the risks

NIM

Nimy to raise $1.21M to explore 'newsy' WA targets

IMM

Immutep reports strong response rate from immunotherapies treating carcinomas

ASX hits all time high out the gate on Friday trades following bullish US inflation data

MDI

Nanocap Middle Island Resources kicks off Barkly copper-gold drill run – a potential IOCG-style NT project

Week 27 Wrap: ASX hits all time high; CBA shares' two realities; US inflation hits 3% ahead of China plenum

I88

Infini soars 50% as company reveals it could’ve just made uranium history – redefining what it means to be “high grade”

AII

Almonty locks in govt agreement for tungsten oxide plant in South Korea

There are more pages in this discussion • 24 more messages in this thread...

First 487 Last

Add SP1 (ASX) to my watchlist