I would say the c) & d) could mean something if there is...

I would say the c) & d) could mean something if there is evidence to support the claim of the transactions. I note that no evidence has been provided to back this claim to date, which is in itself interesting because they are very specific in regards to a) and e), but very vague about the other payments. As I previously said, there are certainly questions to be asked and I would like to see more evidence from ISX to back up the statements. They either don't have it, or they have are deliberately withholding it (which I am not sure why they would).

What I find most interesting about ISX's case in general isn't just about whether they have contravened the listing rules in relation to the issuance of performance shares and revenue recognition (the specifics of this stuff is a fair way into the SOC), but rather their case seems to be largely built on the fact that they believe ASX doesn't have the power to take the actions they have and they should of instead referred the case on to ASIC to investigate (which they have I believe, I think the SOR mentions a phone call in regard to this) and they should of let them keep trading. So while we all debate the finer details of all performance shares and revenue recognition, I think it is an ancillary point to the case ISX is making. It is a matter that ASIC will deal with in due course.