Ann: ASX Update on status of ASX Directions, page-382

This was really a bull$#!t request. There is a serious question whether ASX was just attempting to make it look like ISX is being belligerent for not answering, disruptive, and/or not serious about ISX's offer.

Questions I have about this request includes:

1. Why did ASX only ask for this documentation on how the performance shares were distributed (i.e. trust documents etc, who determined the amount of distribution etc...) only after ISX offered to escrow an equivalent amount of shares to the achieved performance shares.
2. Why was ASX not curious in 2018 about how the performance shares were distributed?
3. If, as the 2014 Otis Energy documentation pre-acquisition states, the shares were to be distributed to the Vendor in which "Mr Nickolas John Karantzis, who holds an interest of over 20% in the issued capital of the Vendor...", according to the % owned in ISX BV. Doesn't this assume that the rest of the shares are distributed to the others accordingly? And is there a legal issue if it was at Karantzis's discretion since he was the key founder?
4. If ASX's only real objection to the conditions around the escrow of the shares was because one of the conditions ISX was attempting to impose was that ASX could not suspend ISX again during the escrow period, why didn't ASX just qualify that as "...for any reason that is historical in nature and not a current reason" - or something similar in order to get the agreement done?

It is a valid question of whether ASX had any intention of accepting the escrow offer and allow ISX shares to trade.
It is a valid question of whether ASX will continue to move the goal post continuously.

And they say that JK is being unreasonable?