Asx defence, page-26

Point 95 looks to be a contentious and interesting point.

The SOR was identified by the court as factually incorrect or at least contains various errors. The Court was not going to restrain the ASX from publishing their opinions, but, it doesn't absolve the ASX from legal breaches if they get it wrong.

The SOR does not run true with point 95 as per evidence already presented in the court at the interlocutory hearing.

The SOR is both factually incorrect/opinion and incomplete by ASX own admission, hence by default it would have to be misleading. The SOR was published to the market despite all of this.

I can't make any sense of it, hence the reason ISX are claiming ASX did not act in good faith.

in my opinion, Acting in good faith would be not publishing the SOR, or waiting until such a time that ASIC "the regulator", had concluded its investigation and had a 100% grip on the facts.