19.22% - owned by ISX or Nick Karantzis?, page-167

I think that is the central question of the case, and to be honest I don't have an answer for it because there is not a clear line as to where ASX's power as market operator ends and where ASIC as the enforcer of the legislation picks it up.

I get the impression you think I am in total disagreement with you (based on your very strong language), I am actually not. I certainly agree that there are discrepancies/evidence noted in the SOR that should be of concern for shareholders. But I also think ISX may also have a case in the fact that ASX has overstepped the mark in their role as market operator.

While the SOR has many pieces of evidence against ISX, ASX never goes as far as making a factual claim of fault or stating a listing rule has been broken as a matter of fact. Instead using language that is more speculative, such as "in ASX's opinion", "ASX does not agree", etc. If the evidence was so concrete I don't understand why ASX would not have made claims as statement of fact against ISX.

Of course this does not exonerate ISX, but I just don't think the court case is as black and white as you make it out to be (and neither does Judge Davies who has allowed the case to progress). Again, the case is not about revenue recognition and the milestone shares primarily, it is about whether ASX is exercising it's powers as market operator appropriately with respect to ISX.

The revenue recognitions and millstones shares will be dealt with by ASIC I am assuming, and if you were to as me if I have concerns about that investigation based on the evidence available, my answer is yes.