Hi Tradealot, interesting post, a lot to discuss here.
1) Fascinating that other posters who espouse legal views (including Chillingout who has dropped tonnes of knowledge and is clearly legally trained) are dismissed but one cranky poster says a legal view is wrong and you take that as gospel. I wonder if you saw Jimmy Kimmel highlight Trump supporters views of Biden vs Trump quotes (spoiler alert, they were all Trump's and the views varied significantly depending on who they thought delivered them). Perhaps you can learn something about consistency and critical thinking?
https://boingboing.net/2024/02/26/jimmy-kimmel-reveals-trump-cultists-blind-devotion.html2) Loss of chance is an interesting angle. Except for the little quirk that there was no loss of chance. ISX was a publicly traded company. It PRIMARILY traded on an exchange, the ASX. Like all public companies,
the stock could and did trade off market (think of all the criticism of Jlo). In fact, 1stPrize conveniently posted a tweet from fearless leader stating exactly that holders could have sold. There was no loss of chance.
3) The legal agreement is between ISX and ASX as the exchange on which they are listed. Did you ever sign a contract with ASX, did you give them (not a broker, the ASX) money? No. So the entity to sue ASX must be.... you guessed it ISX. They tried that, remember what happened there? They walked away.
4) Let's go to make believe world and say loss of chance existed, all the pom pom wavers here made it very clear they were happy holders of the stock through this ride so how could you possibly claim to have lost a chance to sell? Discovery would be pretty easy...
