Ann: ASX Update on status of ASX Directions, page-474

From 1) well-intentioned naivety (the sublime) to 2) the villainous entrapment of a potential competitor (the ridiculous)... the two opposite ends of the continuum.

Thanks @aes411 - you stimulate my imagination with this... but my imagination is already fertile enough all the same. Theres too little accurate info to make any real sense of ASX activity on this range of issues.

The initial reason being SP volatility - prob an excuse at first, similar to a police charge on the most likely offence to give reason to hold the "suspect" - and on to the PSs, which ASX approved after SH votes supported the PS, which were held in escrow for the 12 months and still not sold... all really very vague reasons for suspension.

Fishing Queries failed to secure some crime or significant irregularity so ASX release their SOR full of vague insinuations and suspicions, roundly criticised by Davies, J.. "Questions to be answered" (loose paraphrase) of ASX SOR - evidence of malicious intent(?)

I.E. Agreed scope attempted by ASX to add issues (Visa) not stated in the original reason for ASX directing such I.E. assessment and finally rejection of the Exec Summary and demand to receive the full report - now this. I propose, would be contrary to contractual arrangement as ISX was CU client and so commercial in confidence issues would bar ASX from access to the full report, especially given suspicions that ASX would leak the report to AFR.

The ASX work on this provides adequate support to both your hypotheses.

ISX, on the other hand, started with full responses to Query Letters yet when these looked increasingly like fishing ISX became reluctant to provide full answers. Again commercial in confidence cited, prob with good reason.

SOC and legal action commenced and non-cooperation resulted... hence increased interest from ASX.

Legal proceedings - interlocutory hearing resulted in 1:nil yet I suspect that ISX positioned ASX with this a) to allow further time for developing case arguments and b) giving ASX enough rope. The judgement revealed that SOR had dubious rationale and no real evidence so score adjusted to bill all draw.

The most recent hearing seemed to result in cementing Davies J. position, possibly siding with ISX... I only read the commentary so I think I'm prob wrong on this as I missed much of the dialogue... are there any reports available to us to give a greater depth understanding of the hearing result? More commentary by direct audience?

Where there is a polar distinction between possible understandings of a given scenario, I've often found that the truth is somewhere in between. My limited understanding suggests that there is some real reasoning behind ASX's actions to date, yet the serious aspersions cast on Kevin Lewis' motivations certainly favours a personal attack hypothesis as well as supporting the competition hypothesis.

ASX have made much of the ASIC investigation, yet we've had no word from ASIC regarding their interest. All we truly have is ASX word that ASIC are investigating and in-the-loop. I've no doubt ASIC are very interested and possibly investigating ASX actions as much as ISX. Certainly they've had sufficient notices from ISX holders to trigger such investigation. ASIC would also have all material that ASX have gathered and would likely form a similar opinion to Davies J.

I don't suppose that we will truly understand the motives of ASX until at least the final court run... Yet motives are only part of the problem and certainly ASX responses to each unfolding attempt to garner more info from ISX indicates that there is a cold determination to find information that they "know" is there (deep suspicion rather than knowledge).

The real issue is before the court. I have confidence in the legal system and in Davies J., perhaps this is more due to the fact that her honour has seemingly sided with ISX yet this is itself a danger as it may leave the perception of bias and therefore give ASX grounds for appeal.

This will be a longer road than appeared previously. I consider that ISX may have created the conditions to make delisting a necessity (what do you think of this @NashaNasha) as much as ASX have done. If both co.s are working toward the same end (delisting), perhaps ISX should apply to delist sooner rather than later? only a thought as yet not seriously considered...

All only IMO

I'm looking forward to reading thoughts on this... Scott.