It's just hard to see how the court can order those shares to be...

It's just hard to see how the court can order those shares to be taken from him. I wonder why people still hang on to this "hope".

The court may find on the balance of probabilities that the contracts were entered into primarily to drive up revenue to meet the milestones.

But how on earth is ASIC going to prove that even then, it was only for JK's benefit and was detrimental to the company and shareholders?
It's impossible to prove I think. There was no loss from executing them, and there was actually some revenue. Saying it was detrimental because it reduces each shareholder's ownership doesn't make much sense to me. That's the reward for his performance. It's similar to saying because JK gets paid a salary, it's detrimental to shareholders.