A valid question exists: What might ASX’s motive be for ISX’s continued suspension?, page-40

Well the way I see it the only reason why ISX even bothered to appoint clayton Utz to do an independent review to begin with is because the ASX made a direction for ISX to do so. The question is, would ISX had appointed Clayton Utz if the ASX never made the direction? Probably no. The thing to note at present is that ISX has formally declared that the ASX has no power to make directions as written in the amended statement of claims. In my view, ISX basically rejected the direction.

So understanding that, I think it is likely that the review would either never progress beyond mere appointment or alternatively the review may have progressed but designed only to cover a miniscule portion that would cause it to get rejected by the ASX.

My view is that the ISX could very easily solve any problems that they have with the ASX by simply appointing an independent financial auditor to audit all of its financials. It could have done it ages ago and if ISX has been innocent then it would have been exonerated ages ago. Funnily enough, for reasons unknown, ISX never took that easy option.