Great post Scott: 45424097 ....fully agree re your questioning of the "comforting or gobsmacking" comments. Why no explanation from the poster re the opinion?
A direct quote from C/Out's post: 51 Posts to date on HC.
Today's post excerpt from 24/06/20 Time: 06:33:58 Post #: 45406423
"Jumping over to the Corps Act. As most know, this is a lengthy and complex piece of legislation. Some people devote a whole career to only a portion of it. If you have a some spare time, have a look at Part 7.2 which covers the Licensing of Financial Markets. It won't take too long. It would be familiar to most because within it is Section 792A(a) that is referred to at para 2(e) of the original SOC (and also the amended version which is the subject of the upcoming Motion). You can see for yourself the general obligations outlined in that section. But I strongly recommend casting an eye over the other obligations and duties on ASX - it's quite eye-opening when viewed in tandem with the facts of this case as they're unfolding.
For example, have a look at Sections 797C, 798B, 798C, 798DA and 798E. That latter is a cracker if things come up to proof. I think most always knew things could be on the nose, but seeing it all in statutory form is both comforting and gobsmacking if made out."
Why on the nose? What a euphemism. Last time 'on the nose' was mentioned was in a Colin Kruger online article which was tipping KYC and others post ISX's 2 Oct 2019 suspension.
Also - Why Masters? Why not a PhD? Who would be funding it also - ASX? given the matter will be based on law, not the ASX. 9EC media? Direct quote: "On another note, I recall someone recently suggesting that this case (particularly if it goes the distance), would form part of a business law module at universities one day".
FYI/IMO - this earlier post below dated 27/4/2020 MAY explain a bit more about the poster and motives/alliances etc. These are comments and opinions I do not agree with, however, this is a forum. I hope this, my post, remains as others are allowed to voice their opinions as detailed below.
ChillingOut
51 Posts - first post on HotCopper was 18 Dec 2019. All posts have been re ISX and timing of posts can be referenced to ASX/ISX incidences.
Date: 27/04/20
Time: 13:19:14
Post #: 44278759
An excerpt from C/Out's post 27 April 2020 pasted below-
"First up, Ms Button should not be the subject of any derision or derogatory comments(professional or otherwise) on this or any other forum. She's a Queen’s Counsel (and an eminently qualified one) who has been briefed by HSF lawyers to represent the interests of ASX. She is tethered to the instructions that she is given. Whilst she can advise and exercise her forensic judgment (within reason and even that's usually in consultation with her instructing solicitor),she can’t suddenly go off on a frolic of her own at the Bar table that flies in the face of the clear instructions that she has received from her client. Anyone is welcome to look up the relevant Victorian Bar Rules for clarification.
Secondly,the said references to HC posters was not some sort ‘magic bullet’ submission that was made that was going to torpedo the ISX application. Aside from the first 10 minutes, I watched the application from go to whoa save for the period post-lunch when the details of the ASX report were being canvassed and public access was denied. That submission was made in the context of the ‘balance of convenience’ and was even tangential to that. All that the ASX counsel was seeking to do was to give an example of the far-reaching effect of the mystery surrounding the report and, by inference, how that was to the detriment of the operation of the ASX and how, on balance, that could be alleviated by its publication. To suggest that it was some sort of, “Well Your Honour, here comes the sting in the tail” submission that was proffered by some is just incorrect.It was not put forward as evidence of the fact contained in the posts nor should it be. It was put forward to say, “well, here’s a considerable number of people who are concerned and would like to know the outcome”. That’s admissible and it was nothing higher than that. Ms Button wasn’t relying on the truth of the contents of the posts, only the fact that they were made and the number of them. How else to you get it in – call every person individually assuming they can be identified?"
