Ann: Cont Disclosure Independent Expert Report & Supplementary, page-130

No, absolutely not a forensic examinatiin and in fact it is quite the opposite. What Clayton Utz did was a client requested review and I have addressed this topic in my earlier post.



You can personally see it as a forensic examination but the reality is that it wasn't all. You would only be lying to yourself if you keep believing that it was and there is no point to that.

No, the independent review had proven nothing. The same point that I have made in this post earlier is again relevant here. All the independent review had proven is that other than the 4 key contracts plus the 2 scammers, OTcapital and TraderQ, ISX had not signed any other material contract, at least based of ISX's perspective of materiality. You have to start to wonder as to why that been the case...

This is also very interesting:

From the independent review and ISX's answers to the queries by ASX, ISX has always been saying when referring to almost all of the past contracts that they have signed that it is not possible to forecast revenue to be generated. So how is it then that ISX was able to determine how much damages to claim? Especially since everything is very speculative considering there were no contracts signed...so how? Very contradictory!