Why is it easier to mistrust ISX in the absence of proof then it is to trust?, page-32

@n00bmasta Not one of these is rock solid.

1. The RED5 incident is not worthy of a mention. OM report stated that ownership of directors shares was opaque. The fact is all director shares had been clearly declared. The owners of RED5 were not related parties or directors and as such ISX had no business reporting with respect to the ownership of these shares any more than reporting who the members were of any other companies owning shares. What do you think the attitude of LHC shareholders would be if ISX started naming them individually. That ISX decided to declare was probably done through the permission of the RED5 shareholders in an attempt to settle the noise. See where that got them.
2. This is also blown way out of proportion. There were so many parts to these contracts that, in my opinion, it really wasn't accurate to label the entire contracts set-up and integration. Frankly, the contracts had many different parts and if I had accounted for these contracts in my company I wouldn't have called it all set-up and maintenance. The parts included: License, Software, Services, Development, Integration, Maintenance, Technical support services, 6 Months Software Support and Training.’ If I had broken this down, I would have broken them down according to those headings.
3. Really? This one doesn't count as "in dispute" or rock solid. You have covered this issue in 1 & 2 and you can't count it twice. Additionally, just because a company is being investigated doesn't equate to "rock solid" guilt.
4. Considering the lack of facts in the SOR and the judge's consideration that there was a serious question to be had as to the validity of the accusations in the SOR to which ASX did not dispute, you can hardly consider this to be rock solid evidence

QED