You're trying to argue with LNW, but you're actually disagreeing with the quoted provisions from the government appointed regulator. That might not be so easy to dismiss as you seem to indicate.
You're fine up to 72(b). At 72(b), you lose the plot. 1. It's actually pretty straightforward to prove the something is to the detriment of shareholders. You look at the shareholders position before the contract, and their position after the successful completion of the contract. If the shareholders position is worse (it is - by a lot), it's to the detriment of the shareholders. 2. "ISX shareholders do not see this as a detriment". Do we not? I certainly think that this it was hugely to my detriment... I'm not saying I speak for all shareholders, but you damn sure don't speak for me. Regardless, it's pretty easy to dispute, Stockholm Syndrome or not... ASIC's response to this would likely be along the lines of "you're accused of deceiving your shareholders. That you did a really good job and some of them are still deceived doesn't matter."
Quantitatively, the performance shares vs the profit on the job massively detrimented shareholders. I can't see an argument to dispute this, and I can't see ISX attempting it. After that, the rest of your arguments fall flat.
To help you out, the argument you're looking for (and the one I'm expecting ISX to use) is that the revenue was intended to lead to future profits down the line. That it didn't was just unfortunate. It worked out to the significant harm of shareholders, but only accidentally, not because the directors were being dodgy.
ISX Price at posting:
$1.07 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
