Ann: Cont Disclosure Independent Expert Report & Supplementary, page-61

Okay so let's start with the VISA part of the review. In my view, those lawyers are so very good with their words, for example is quote 1 below:



Like I have said many times before, Clayton Utz (CU) could only work with information provided to them by ISX. CU also could only work within the parameters that were set for them by the agreed scope of review, ie. the agreement solely between ISX, the client, and CU, the reviewer. Given that limitation, CU had no power to compel the production of any information that the client wouldn't voluntarily produce. As such, it acted in good faith in believing whatever ISX said or view as true, even when it led to parts of the reports being based of assumption.

This is because it is beyond CU's agreed scope of review to verify the validity of any information given to it.

I am sure I can find more wordings akin to those I have highlighted in the report because the report is peppered with them. I, however, think that people would be able able to understand the point that I am trying to make from just that one example. Anyway to help you all decipher the report better here is more, quote 2:

So from what I can read off quote 2, ISX had accepted a letter from Visa on 17th April 2020 stating that its arrangements with Visa has been terminated. ISX then coveniently deemed it as invalid and then decided to use that unilateral view as basis to withhold its disclosure. To withhold from who? From the market of course. Interestingly, ISX had received the letter from VISA on the 17th of April and yet JK said this on the 1st of May...



I see this fact as massive discrepancy. So why did JK say this when the letter was about VISA terminating its agreements with ISX? Why did he tell the market as if the reason was PCI DSS? We know now it wasn't true...

Also there is some information in the review that I believe have deep ramifications for the upcoming court case, it made me realise something:



So ISX finds it difficult to forecast revenue for contracts...This seems to be a recurring view. Then we have this:


Especially this part:



Now, from those quotes I have provided there, one can understand that ISX finds it impossible to forecast revenues to be generated even from a signed commercial contract. It is also ISX's view that it would be premature and potentially misleading...as the contract may not ultimately deliver material revenue for ISX...as you all can read from the quote just above. In addition, ISX also often raises the issue that incomplete negotiation affects the validity of things as can be seen here as well other places:



THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IS: IF THE ABOVE IS TRUE THEN HOW DID ISX DETERMINED THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES FROM A NON COMMERCIAL CONTRACT FOR THEIR DAMAGE CLAIMS?

Very contradictory....Highly contradictory. Travesty of logic.