RE: Announcements
The guidance is open to a lot of interpretation, and there will be various standards around that. I don't know the listing rules, but I know from an accounting point of view (so for those wondering why there was no contingent asset nor liability), if you can form a basis of a reasonable at-risk amount (lawyer determination) and the estimated chance of success (lawyer determination), you can calculate a contingent liability. If this amount is immaterial, you wouldn't accrue for it. This is likely similar to the materiality for ASX purposes.
Just to spitball (since that's the word of the week), it's going to be the same reason we don't see CBA announcing every time someone sues them for $100m for emotional distress for foreclosing on a house. Even if they lose, the loss is not going to be $100m, it might be $100k. Then the chances of loss might be 50%, so from $100m and material, the contingency might be $50k. Here, we've sued for $500m. I know a few holders like to jump on that figure, but I've got to hope that most people understand that even if ISX win, the benefits will be reinstatement, costs, and then possibly a smaller payout. If you got $50m out of it, JK would have to be thrilled - the ASX lawyers may come up with a professional opinion that this is the most likely decision if they lose. Given this is fairly bread-and-butter for ASX, their lawyers may view a <50% chance of loss. Let's work on 50% though. So their contingency calculation might be $25m. That's not material.
RE: Hidden memos
How do you know that there are memos that were hidden? You need to prove the meetings happened, and then that memos were formed for them. Most meetings I go into don't result in memos - not to hide things, just because they're pointless. You've stated "not all the ones we were after". How do you know they exist? Maybe you just don't have the smoking gun yet? How can you make judgements if you don't have the smoking gun?
While we're at it, what's the requirement before ASX can suspend? Where's that written? Who said that they need conclusive proof before suspending? We are missing a lot of info here. We only have JK's side of the story, and even that doesn't paint him in the best light.
Expand
