Share
2,243 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 4424
clock Created with Sketch.
10/12/21
11:45
Share
Originally posted by itzgr82balive:
↑
ISX vs ASX today @9:30 Melbourne time. Interlocutory Application by ASX. ASX today asked for an interlocutory hearing to have the sentences struck out that said, what council for ASX maintained, were evidence and not pleadings (see 5A for what ASX claimed(in part) was evidence, below). ISX council said that they were pleadings because the conversations are part of the pleading that in exercising ASX's powers under the Listing Rules, ASX did not act in good faith, honestly and fairly and/or reasonably. The documents to show those conversations from which 5A conversations occurred are the evidence, not the quotes. The judge said that even if ISX rewrote their pleadings (and she gave a couple of examples of how they could write it differently still containing the quotes, ASX was going to have to answer to these, because in fairness, ISX needed to know what strategy ASX intended to use in its defence and that ISX, by including these in the 4FASOC, had provided ASX with how ISX intended to proceed. After a lot of "toing and froing", the judge ruled that the 4FASOC would remain as is and that ASX needed to amend its defence to include accepting and/or denying that the conversations did or did not occur. ASX could not simply say it was evidence therefor they would not reply. ISX asked for costs, but Judge Davies said she had interrupted ASX's council early challenging his arguments so in fairness she would not apply costs. 5A: "Between 9:00 am and about 9:40 am on 1 October 2019, representatives of ASIC and representatives of ASX attended a telephone conference in relation to ISX during which: (a) Tom Veidners (Senior Manager Market Surveillance) or ASIC: (i) said that they were looking at the "veracity of the revenue figure for the 2018 financial year upon which the performance shares vested"' (ii) said that they had reviewed "work done by ASIC's financial reporting and accounts team to ensure that they were not duplicating work or seeking the same information "; (iii) said that "upon revisiting these ISX documents already in ASIC's possession, it did not reveal a 'smoking gun'" (iv) said that "ASIC was not in possession of the ultimate source documents to verify"; and (v) asked "whether a suspension is something that ASX has considered"; (b) Kevin Lewis (at that time, Chief Compliance Officer) of ASX said that: (i) "we have considered it b ut we don't have hard evidence"' (ii) "as much as we would like to suspend, unless ASIC gives a direction, at the current juncture we do not have sufficient evidence"; and (iii) "it grates to come to that conclustion"
Expand
Also, I cannot wait to see ASX's amended defence. I suspect it will be in the order of "we agree that the notes exist, but argue that they are just written notes not real transcrips of what was said and so could just have been the opinion of the person writing them. This was some of the ASX legal council's arguments. I also am looking forward to the actual proceedings next year!