.
DAY 5 - Monday 06-03-23
Hi Everyone
Here's my notes taken from today's hearing as it proceeded.
09.50 start
Isx kc started the day working through an objections list, some paperwork clarification of sec 136 whatever that refers to.
10.00 isx kc calls mr Minehane to the witness box, does his usual identification of witness described previously
10.04 then asic kc starts questioning mr minehane. First up was revenue questions. Working the recurring revenue v intergration (on off) revenue.
Asic kc is now getting details on the intergration contracts prior to June 30 2018. Working on the back to back (sub contracting ) out the work. Asking lots of were you aware questions. Building his asic case following same line as mr harts friday questioning format.
He's pushing the intergration fees that made up the bulk of revenue that triggered the performance shares were done soley to obtain the perf shares. Mr minehane stating a good case here, that it was all done for future growth.
Now working on the % of recurring v one off revenue and if the market was informed. Discussing 4C, Asic kc is basically asking the same questions he asked mr hart on friday for his opinions.
Asic kc very good with his questioning and extracting info, and getting definative answers. Market couldn't have 100% known the breakdown % revenue figures between one off and recurring base on the info released to market.
Now the 15% statement jk made in analysis report 3/8/18. Proceedings asked for a clarification from his honour as asic kc asked question that was objected to by isx kc. Mr minehane had to leave court for 10 min while the issue was sorted. (This also happened another 2 times throughout mr minehane's questioning to clarify questions)
After all that questioning Mr minehane did agree with the asic kc questioning that the 15% figure quoted by jk was a misleading statement based on all the financials from 31-7-18
Based on Fri with mr hart and now mr minehane, it's asic 2 v isx 0 on this 15% quote issue.
Court adjourned for a short break from 11.26 for 10 minutes.
On return they started discussing the visa issue.
Asic kc is loosing the visa issue, he's pushing, but getting nowhere, isx facts and timeline appear to be sound up to this point. Asic kc tried with mr hart on friday and now with mr minehane to win points, he's grasping, not a slam dunk like the 15% analyst quote.
Now working on the drafting of the visa disclosure letter to the market. Asic kc saying isx didn't inform market of the reasons for the visa termination. After a lot of questions and discussion, Mr minehane, did state that in isx opinion it was detrimental to mention the aml issue to the market based on its a false statement in isx opinion backed by other agencies no issues, and would be misinforming the market based on its nothing more than a visas opinion.
@12.30 Asic kc finished questioning on this issue. Isx kc now re-examining, clarifying questions answered to asic kc.
@1.00 - Mr minehane was excused from witness box.
After lunch Ms Worell will be questioned by asic kc for the rest of the day.
Court adjourned for lunch - 1.05 to 2.30
After lunch, isx kc went through more 136 qualification objections, as he did at the start of todays hearing.
@2.40 ms worrell sworn in. Isx kc introductory questions same as with mr hart & mr minehane.
@2.44 asic kc starts his questioning. Visa questioning beginning from March 2020 as any previous issue's in this asic litigation ms worrell wasn't employed at isx. Asic kc conducted a questioning similar to mr hart & minehane. Asic kc then discussed 17th april termination letter, with plenty of were you aware type questions. Then 12/5 visa letter, were visa stated we won't accept any more correspondence. Isx then had to inform CBC before Aus market now that all other avenues of discussion had been exhausted. They debated this for quiet a time. The asic kc is being very pedantic at this point. I do understand there going for isx jugular and any small point to claim victory is what he's after.
Ms worrell stated, isx believes and still does that the reason for all this visa issue is brand risk, arising from a lot of derogative media articles at the time.
As ms worrell is the cfo, therefore lots of data and graphs was talked about in this section. Asic kc trying to tie down how import visa was to isx based on gtpv v other card schemes. As ms worrell said you can't compare as this was when the asx suspension and loss of customers was happening, covid, global downturn etc. the numbers don't give a true indication. visa wasn't a material loss in ms worrell's opinion, as the customers switched to other payment options. Asic kc tried to disprove this theory.
Then onto the 4 contracts, ms worrell keeps stating that she wasn't employed for any related questions that asic kc asked. He dropped that line of questioning.
@4.22 - asic kc finishes - no re-examination by isx kc - ms worrell excused.
Ms Worrell did a great job this afternoon.
4.26 Court adjourned until 10.15 tomorrow
Until tomorrow. Cheers
.
Expand
