Ann: ASIC v ISIGNTHIS LTD & ANOR, page-99

The discussion on this thread has become more about
I can use words to imply something if some <particular> things are true,
V
i can cast doubt on the claims being held to be true
than anything useful in terms of outcomes.

ASIC have made their claims, the court will ask where are the facts and weigh the evidence.

What ASIC are seeking is that the word "serious" can be established at 74, relying on preceding clauses..
Hard to see how 72 can be maintained unless the PR did not pass audit, but they did.
By making 'serious' a claim, there is an argument to be made that anything less than 'serious' substantially diminishes the impact of orders that might be given.
If any dilution of shareholders interests falls under s 1317G(1)(b)(iii) of the Corporations Act, there are a lot of BoD who will be seeking legal advice regarding vesting of shares and options.

Lawyers for ISX need to work back from acceptable practice = that which has not been found to be serious, to set the bar..

ASIC have a hill to climb (facts) to get to the bar ("serious").
GLWT.
IMO.