Argument that ISX directors’ motive for earning the shares in 2018 were in the shareholder’s best interest., page-141

Did it generate growth: Please show me how this generated any growth. I'm not aware that the company are arguing that they resulted in growth. I thought they were arguing that they resulted in "learnings".

Were the contracts in line with normal industry practice:
1. Outsourcing is fine. I don't have a problem there. That's not unusual.
2. CBA, TLS and Vodafone all have quite large internal staffs though, and you generally make sure operations are headed internally, even if you outsource some aspects. It's very rare for a project to be 100% contractor. Of course, we don't know that these jobs were 100% contractor. We just know that the contractors cost 90-100% of the revenue. There will, of course, have been other costs in processing the contracts, negotiating the deals, and structuring the scope. These will have pushed a lot of the deals into loss-making positions, even if there weren't any internal workers on the project. This brings me to:
3. Normal industry practice is not to sign your large contracts with a loss-making position. The margins we made on these deals were not normal. They were not acceptable to any professionally run business anywhere. They were not a joint venture, and it wasn't a loss-leader scenario, which involves you making profit elsewhere on the same deal.

Realistic path: Agree to disagree.

Internal processes: Because it's documented. Karantzis directly intervened in the finance team and had them issue these invoices. He specified the dates and amounts. He went over the head of the CFO at the time (Todd Richards). That is not normal.

Directly influenced: Can you tell me what the important target is? The only way I can read this is that the performance shares were an important target. Isn't that exactly the problem?
Side note: The CEO being directly involved doesn't form a problem per se, but it's an excluding factor. If no board representatives were involved in the deal, then it's hard to argue that the board were plotting. If the CEO was involved, it's not excluded. That's (one of the places) where the ASX conspiracy falls apart. No one involved in this had any input in corporate strategy, so "taking down a competitor" is ludicrous.

Also, nice work on being a government advisor writing position papers for prime ministers who also ran their own business with staff, while also being an individual project contractor. This is totally normal and believable.

My shares: I had $16k worth of shares one day, and now I have a few hundred dollars. Stop incorrectly saying i haven't lost money. I have. That I made other profits on various other investments doesn't mean that I don't make a loss on these shares. I care about this because a serious breach is being alleged, which I believe is sufficiently proven. If true, that breach is a disgusting betrayal of shareholders, resulted in me losing about $15k, and then the CEO is using the silence of other parties (who are keeping mum because there's active court cases underway) to spin ludicrous stories to keep using shareholders against their best interests. He's now spent millions of our dollars to defend against his alleged crimes, moved us offshore without a plan (also ridiculously detrimental to shareholders) and he's used a lack of understanding by shareholders to do this (just look at how many posters here have asked why they still have ISX shares).