ASIC v ISX Hearing, page-1739

Thanks @tradealot and @Tanookichan for the excellent overview of today's proceedings. The gem of the day for me was Collinson cross-examining Sisson about why he thought the market didn't know that the majority of ISX revenue was "non-recurring" and why it took the market 3 weeks to decide on that basis to purchase stock which, in Sisson's opinion, made the price rise substantially. Collinson reviewed other announcements that occurred in that timeframe and closer to the rise in ISX share price, and asked if Sisson had considered them as per why the price rose (one, Sisson had no memory of, and the other he did not review for his second report). Collinson also asked Sisson why he had not considered that these announcements may be the more rational reason why the stock had risen since they were closer to the rise. He said, for the one he could remember, that he had already discounted that it would cause the price to rise. Susson, in my opinion, was not credible.

And yes, I am biased, but I agree that Houston was much more professional with much greater and believable arguments towards the value of the "non-recurring" revenue - re: that valuing shares at a specific point in time is based on the projection of future revenue and that the potential for new customers to make greater future revenue had as much value (if not more so) than the GPTV revenue from existing customers who may or may not increase their revenue (or exist) at a future point in time.

All in all, (again, in my opinion) another great day for ISX.