@A4paper, (Reply did not work...)09/09/20 11:24 Post #:...

@A4paper, (Reply did not work...)

09/09/20 11:24 Post #: 47200726

09/09/20 14:34 Post #: 47208262

There are two issues with the escrow, but I know you know this. This post is for people who do not know.

1. Regarding KL's demand for information about the performance shares:

I believe the offer by ISX to ASX to escrow theirshares was a sincere one. ASX, instead of taking the offer on face value, has instead set off still another investigation. ISX gave ASX information on the performance shares, and ASX demanded more information that I believe ISX just doesn't have. Due to ISX's lack of trust of ASX, and rightly so, it is safe to assume that ISX believes that any further information is likely to be abused. And again, why not, considering the history?

The information ISX gave to ASX is:




ASX has asked for Trust Deeds that show distribution rights and information about the consideration that the founding investors received them and says they don't understand why ISX just doesn't give the information to ASX. And why doesn't ISX? Because:

• I doubt that ISX(BVI) had trust deeds that showed distribution rights. I suspect this was based on some monetary investment plus physical unpaid contribution and it was pretty much JK's discretion at the end of the day. If it had had trust deeds showing distribution rights, there wouldn't have been a court case by a disgruntled employee(s) who thought they should have received more.
• ASX should have known what the consideration was since these were provided to ISX(BVI) at the time of the sale, for, if I remember right, $.03.
• Why would ASX care about this additional information if their reason is that they believe ISX directors will sell the shares and they (ISX) will have to front up with the money for unsuspecting investors that purchased them if it was found that ISX earned them illegally and they had to be returned? It shouldn't really matter what or where the shares came from - except that they are in lieu of performance shares. And how would they know once converted, which specific share is an original performance share or not anyway?
• ASX has no power over shareholders or offshore entities. Shareholder matters are Corporation Laws, not listing rules.

So why, if ASX is asking in good faith, is ASX demanding this additional information? For all those ASX supporters that think ISX should answer each and every question, be polite, "and she'll be right" - it is a fair assumption that ASX knows that an answer does not exist in a formal document and all ASX cares about is putting ISX in a bad light and keep ISX suspended.

2. The terms ISX imposed - that if after ISX was allowed to trade, ASX suspended ISX again, the escrow would end.

This on its face sounds reasonable considering the distrust of ASX that ISX has. ASX could allow ISX to trade and a week later suspend them again for some reason such as asking for information that doesn't relate to a listing rule - just because ASX can and because ISX not providing the information asked for causes a breach of the listing rule. A simple provision that ASX cannot suspend again without direction from ASIC (the RBA, and the treasurer?) would be a way to get around this distrust, but it is safe to assume that ASX just is not interested anyway and ASX just does not want ISX to trade.