"ISX must prove that the statement of reasons is misleading and deceptive again the ASX's defence in court. If what is said in the SOR is true then there is no case at all. "
???? Would it have been easier/quicker for ASX simply to have just proven it is "true" and not misleading in their defence document or even months ago way before this in the original SOR? Surely the ASX can post a revision to the SOR with their powers at any time and can inform market of these truths now to keep the market informed. Then as there would be "no case at all" it could have shut down this whole ISX case altogether months ago?
If you believe what you just wrote you are suggesting ASX has an advantage by letting this go to court. As you are a massive ASX supporter in this can you do some research and list for all the advantages for ASX going to court with this as the defendant?
Also you have stated in the past your belief ISX was drawing this out with court action to essentially fleece shareholders and disapear out the back door. "husk" was your word. If this is true...would ASX then not see this happening and act sooner and provide fact to force ISX to back down and protect shareholders??? or are they again getting lead down the rabbit hole blindly.
All of the above suggests that there is no fact "truth" that ASX can prove? Oh and don't forget they have since labeled their SOR as an opinion/feeling piece. So what was the purpose of it. I also did not see the disclaimer "opinion only" on the SOR before I read it. I would be of the opinion that if ASX wanted it released that bad as to defend its release in court it would/should have been highly reputable.
Not really sure of your argument Annie.
ISX Price at posting:
$1.07 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
