ASIC Commences Proceedings Against ISX and JK, page-2165

Yeah, you're conflating a few things. You're trying to argue that we got ongoing revenue for them, so making a profit on professional services work wasn't relevant.

This can have some level of truth - but again, the way ISX did it isn't standard business practice ever, because it basically screws ISX. You simply wouldn't do that in business. If you're going to do heavily discounted work, then you always contract in for guaranteed future revenue - to prevent exactly what happened with FCorp (you do a bunch of work, make no money, and then the client disappears). So you say, "we'll do this for cost instead of 40% on T+M, and in return, you guarantee us $100m in GPTV in the next 3 years. If processing volumes don't meet this level, you pay us the fees we'd get if it did ($100m GPTV would be $2.5m revenue for us, roughly).

These contracts had no risk management. They had huge potential downside for us. And all for EUR260k... Well, at most EUR260k. That's only revenue less contract fees. It doesn't account for internal time - direct (negotiating the deal, creating the specs, liaising customer to supplier, testing, training, etc) or indirect (legal costs of creating/reviewing the contract, finance team, admin).

You've mentioned the ongoing revenue, so fair enough - one of the three collapsed, two had some ongoing revenue, which dwindled rapidly. We got $400k profit (at most) on integration, we got $1.06m revenue (not profit) ongoing in the next 6 months, and we lost a third of our company (conservatively valued at $30m) as a result.

Do you see where ASIC don't think that the directors weren't really acting for shareholders?