19.22% - owned by ISX or Nick Karantzis?, page-114

This is not a criminal case so the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty' doesn't arise. If it was a criminal trial, a 'no bill' submission would have been made by now and any charge(s) would've been dropped due to failure to serve a prosecution brief of evidence in a timely manner. It wouldn't have even got that far because there's insufficient evidence to underpin a charge being laid and if there was, it should have been done and dusted by now. The best ASX have had are spurious non-disclosure allegations and even the initial suspension remains shrouded in mystery.

If this suspension matter was dealt with by the Civil Court system as a preliminary issue brought by ASX (leave aside the fact that it is now there because ISX are suing ASX - most are familiar with the grounds outlined in the 2FASOC), an application would have been made by ISX to have the proceedings dismissed for want of prosecution and failure to exercise due dispatch, for the same reasons outlined above. That would've met with success for ISX.

Unfortunately, the current system provides that ASX has an absolute discretion in an administrative decision making setting and, as noted above in parentheses, ISX have had to sue ASX (which is regrettable in itself that a listed entity has had to go to this extreme) to enforce their rights and bring ASX to account. If ISX comes out of this relatively unscathed and adverse findings are made against ASX, the impact will likely resonate against ASX for some time, if only for precedent value for other aggrieved parties. In a time where there is a technological evolution taking place in the market, whether ASX can withstand that is questionable.

So my question to anyone is not "What was it that ISX has done that made you all believed in its innocence?", but rather, what reasonable and cogent evidence can ASX bring to the table to justify the initial and the ongoing suspension, and why has this not been done? It's not for ISX to prove innocence here.