Because you lack balance, here is a section of the Statement of...

Because you lack balance, here is a section of the Statement of Amended Claims

"In finding that “there are serious questions…as to whether the work required under those contracts was substantially completed by 30 June 2018 and therefore whether the revenue derived under those contracts was properly recognised in the Relevant Period”, ASX failed to take into account the relevant considerations raised in the ISX Response, including the following:

(i) The revenue earned by ISX in the second half of the financial year ending 30 June 2018 was derived from arms-length third parties who were independent of ISX and each other, in that there was no connection whatsoever between the shareholders, directors and officers of each entity.

(ii) Each of those arms-length third parties certified that the contractual obligations had been met by 30 June 2018 by providing a signed Certificate of Practical Completion to that effect and a signed twenty-one page Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Assessment and Attestation.

(iii) Invoices were issued before 30 June 2018 in respect of each customer’s irrevocable binding legal obligation to pay the fees due under the agreement and none of the customers disputed the invoices.

(iv) Before 30 June 2018, Corp Destination Pty Ltd paid 38% of the fees due under the agreement, Nona Marketing Ltd paid 100% of the fees due under the agreement, FCorp Services Ltd paid 63% of the fees due under the agreement and Immo Servis Group S.R.O paid 87% of the fees due under the agreement.

(v) The revenue earned by ISX in the second half of the financial year ending 30 June 2018 was the subject of two audits performed by Grant Thornton.

(vi) During the audits no information was withheld from Grant Thornton and their two audits were unqualified.

(vii) Grant Thornton confirmed that the revenue satisfied AASB 118, AASB 111 and AASB 15.

(viii) Grant Thornton was satisfied that the revenue was accurately recorded and that revenue targets in place and disclosed in the Prospectus dated 22 December 2014 had been met."


I don't pretend to be a legal expert, but they are some pretty definitive statements to be submitting in the case with the potential to be examined in court. Not certain a legal adviser would recommend making such a submission if it wasn't supported by evidence?

The whole argument between ASX and ISX would appear to me to be over the interpretation of the Corps Act (Listing rules matter, but they do not usurp the Corps Act), therefore, your opinion is just that, an opinion, and one that lacks balance and objectivity I might add.