ISX had initiated the initial court action on December 4, 2019, two days BEFORE the draft finding (which later on became the SOR) had even been delivered on December 6, 2019. Once the draft finding had been delivered, ISX was given time to review it, and it did. ISX had even asked for an extension, which was granted by the ASX. After the process had been completed, ISX attempted an injunction against the SOR through court that culminated in the court ruling against ISX on April 30, 2020. Not long after, the SOR was released. All of that is fact, so do not bother arguing against it.
Now, taking into account all of that, ISX had many opportunities to present facts to correct anything in the SOR. The first opportunity is during the review. By the way, I think it is important to note that ISX had failed to inform the market that it had in fact received the draft finding from the the ASX when it had received it. The second opportunity was during the injunction court case, where ISX was given time to present all the evidence and views as to what in the SOR it would like to be changed. The third opportunity is very open ended, and it began on the day the SOR was released through MAP. At any time, ISX could have chosen to correct, with facts, any of the content outlined in the SOR. ISX did release an official response to the SOR, but it was prevented from being released through MAP, because the ASX has viewed it to contain factually incorrect information, which is now vindicated by ASIC when it released its SOC. The official response, however, is available through the company website.
Now, you said:
"Seemingly they may not have had the full information at the time and also refused to listen to ISXs plea to tell them there were relevant facts ignored in their deductions before releasing the SOR."
As for the plea part, there is absolutely no evidence of this, so that part of your post should be thrown out.
As for the part that says, "Seemingly they may not have had the full information at the time....", it makes absolutely no sense, because everything outlined in the SOR, had already happened long before the SOR was conceived. All of the evidence, that formed the basis of the views in the SOR, is outlined in the SOR. These are evidence in the forms of voice recordings, contracts and the likes, bank accounts, etc. There is no disputing such black and white evidence, for example, the certificates of completion. All of them were either unsigned, or signed, but by unqualified person. There is nothing arbitrary about such evidence, it is either the signature is there or not. If the signature isn't there then that particular certificate would be deemed as unsigned.
Now, I have stated my motivation of posting here, what about you? What is your motivation in defending ISX?
Expand
