...difficult one...
.....my view is that Mr Darke's questions should be a bit more to the point ... adapt to the circumstances... everyone can see that she is struggling (for whatever reason) ...so, why prolong this... he should know better:
1) provide the evidence that contradicts her affidavit....show it to her....
2) show her her affidavit... refresh her memory;
3) and ask her whether she wants to reconfirm/withdraw her statement....
... get to the point... 1..2..3... next one... will have the same outcomes in the end...
Also, the hearsay...he said she said on this Tuesday on that Friday...is just pointless..."Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur" - what is freely asserted is freely deserted.... so any discussion without factual evidence at this stage is just pointless ... why doesn't he just show her the minutes....1,2,3...move on.... this is not an Alzheimer's test...why ask her 20 questions about which shade of blue the sky was outside at 1pm 3 years ago.... she can't recall 90% of the facts....so move on...1,2,3....
...saying that, some of those emails (evidence) were also just pointless... especially the Fruitbox ones....he could have wrapped it up in 30 minutes...to the point... absolute waste of time...with no final blow (360 degree conclusion)...
...so I think Mr. Darke is/was ill-prepared... his real M.O. is questionable.. it appears to be more of a fact finding mission than proving that some of her facts in her affidavit are factually incorrect wrong....
Bottom line:
- if ASIC continue to pursue this.... the company secretary & all of the other exec's should also get their comeuppance... it was a complete clusterf@ck out of a governance perspective... but I blame company secretary for this...he should have advised these clowns
- The whole breach of Rule 3.1 allegation has also no merit....ASIC already knows that they have lost their case on this... if these deal were hocus pocus...then it would have been another story....but Fruitbox & CBA & Amazon were all real potential pipelines clients... this has already been substantiated... and there were no revenue expectations if you understood the business model ... contract announcements were just aspirations... which depended on a lot of caveats.... all addressed in the prospectus: any announced contract is deemed non-binding that could be cancelled any time....
- So the real question is whether they should have provided updates on these announced contracts post the original announcements- grey area.... most informed investors would have known that these announcements are depended on uptake... have to wait for results to see quarterly uptake... only the uniformed assumed that these announcements equated to binding revenue guarantees. So can't see the merit for this either...
...anyway.... my 2 cents....
