ASIC v ISX Hearing, page-2833

You are misleading. Post some facts for a change. Read the transcript, the ASIC lawyer stated in his closing address in the ASIC vs ISX case that we have “no evidence” in their claim that the performance shares were gained for “improper purpose”.

Read the transcript again and try to rectify the following statement if you feel it is inaccurate: With regards to the ISX 15% misleading statement claim from ASIC, the only witness ASIC had was a person who stated he was an expert however admitted he did not read the 4C for end of June 2018 that clearly displayed that the cost of goods had risen substantially, he suggested that few investors read that document. How uninformed is he when that is the document that intelligent investors rely on to gain financial insights into their investment rather than an investor briefing that few people attended and was open to verbal interpretations.

Read the transcript again and try to rectify the following statement if you still feel it is inaccurate: The Visa completion announcement that was “late’, as ASIC claim, was not completed until 12th May 2020 when it was clear that all negotiations between ISX and Visa had ceased. After notifying the Cyprus Central Bank and waiting for their response, ISX released the VISA completion announcement on 24th May 2020. During the ISX and Visa negotiations ISX were relying “in good faith” on advice from their Lawyer who was advising that ISX did not need to release an announcement until 12th May 2020. These are the facts from the Federal Court case between ASIC and ISX. No Australian Regulator has come forward with “evidential facts” that demonstrate any “wrong doings” by ISX, even after more than 4 years, and with all their investigative powers.

Let’s deal with facts from the ASIC vs ISX court case not just more innuendo and non-factual assumptions.

Thanks for the opportunity to reply and post some facts again.