ASIC v ISX Hearing, page-344

But isn't it the case that there was no future revenue - as in zero - from two of these customers and that an apparent successor company to the third produced immaterial revenues in 2019? Further, that the integration, inclusive of the hefty licensing fee was not previously booked as revenue and was never again booked as revenue for any future integrations with other customers.

So you are left with a large integration revenue spike before 30 June for customers who went on to not produce any and/or non-material revenue and that practice of licensing fee passthrough revenue never happened before and never happened again.

I don't think it really matters what Minehane thought about the 15% for July to Dec 2018. Nor does it matter that there were the 4 issues that apparently stopped that from happening. Its just not relevant IMO. All that matters is whether the company/JK stated that only 15% of revenue during the period ending 30 June period was integration. On Minehane's evidence today, he agreed that JK had said that and that he shouldn't have.