I have concerns about your identity, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're a genuine holder, not an alt, and answer your question.
The reason why it would grate is that there is often a difference between what is known and what is proveable. It's every cop drama where they know who the bad guy is but they can't hold him.
According to ISX (we only have their side of the story on this conversation), there was a meeting 24 hours before the suspension where ASIC and ASX were discussing this. From the information ISX have given us only:
- This was a meeting between several ISX staff and several ASIC staff. It was not covert, deceptive, nor sneaky. The conversations were documented and filed.
- Both sides believed ISX to be in the wrong on one or more issues
- The purpose of that meeting was to share information regarding believed ISX wrongdoing.
- Kevin Lewis' comments were offered freely to his overseers (ASIC), so it's fairly unlikely it was a confession of wrongdoing.
Again, that's just the information that ISX gave us. They of course didn't quote other parts that would make themselves look bad, but to be honest, I don't think they come out of it looking wonderful by the fact that the government was meeting with the ASX around believed wrongdoing by out BOD.
When I first saw it, I was surprised that they put it in there. It puts a whole lot of stuff on the record. Unfortunately, I didn't see the demerger coming at that stage, and so it makes more sense now - it was a PR event to convince shareholders to help get the assets out of Australia, so that the BOD are insulated from repurcussions.
Expand
