ASIC Commences Proceedings Against ISX and JK, page-2408

Good morning, I think you need to look at your hypothesis in light of the prior consent orders. They are still orders of the Court that have to be complied with by both parties regardless. Leaving aside any compliance with Orders 2 to 4 of 20 July (ASX subpoena) and Order 2 of 16 August (Visa subpoena), the question is whether SP1/ISX/Karantzis (Respondents) have complied with Order 1 made by the Court on both of the above dates and paid the $275K security for the reasonable costs of complying and having the privilege argument. Merely because something has been filed doesn't derogate from the Orders made by consent, otherwise parties would just pick and choose whatever suits them.

Re: the $2.69M security for costs in ISX v ASX, you've stated that it 'would all be happening in the background one way or the other'. Is this something you're aware of or is it speculation? That's a serious question. If SP1/ISX hold to this 'no rush' and 'it will happen when it happens' attitude, they will do so at their own peril. The Federal Court runs the agenda not the litigants and that goes for both sides. I don't agree with the balance of the final paragraph. Outside of an agreement between the parties that nothing will happen without prior notice (which is what they should be angling for but, again, ASX won't let it go on forever), an application made by ASX will be dealt with in short time, if SP1/ISX are eventually put to the sword on this costs issue. At best, with some compelling affidavit evidence and submissions, a short extension may be granted to them. This case was commenced in December 2019. We're up to the 4th Amended Statement of Claim. Anyone looking at it from here on will quickly resolve that it's getting a little too long in the tooth, regardless of who is responsible for its tortuous history.

The named Applicants in ISX v ASX and the Respondents in the ASIC prosecution need to start complying with Court Orders and get their collective acts together. In the former, to advocate for the 10,000 plus loyal shareholders and pursue the claim that they have so vigorously and staunchly maintained; in the latter to defend their own position and reputations.