SP1 (ASX) ASIC v ISX Hearing

Originally posted by itzgr82balive ↑

Of course Sisson did better in the "witness" box. He did better because he is an "advocate" of ASIC and said nothing that Borsky could disagree with. Borsky however spent the better part of the morning and all of the afternoon trying to convince Houston to answer 1 question (framed differently every time Houston said no, he could not agree with the question framed in the way that Borsky framed it. And Houston answered honestly and succinctly. Houston maintained that the question, "I put to you that you know that if a notice had gone out in April that VISA had terminated due to EML risk that this would have had a material effect on the value if ISX". Houston stated for many many reasons that the question was not a valid one and that he could not answer in the affirmative. It is almost as valid as asking if I would jump off a 10 story building would I be dead. It may be that I have a parachute or am on a bungy cord - relevant information that needs to be included for an honest and thorough answer.

The last thing the judge said today was to Houston and that was to say to him thank you and said to the effect and I agree with your answer. Well done Houston!

There really isn't much more to say about today! What a waste of everyone's time Borsky!

Expand

Your lack of understanding of Court room procedures is very apparent. There has been no challenge (at this stage) to Sisson providing an independent expert opinion. For you to say that he is acting as an advocate is not consistent with anything from either party said in Court. In contrast, Houston has been challenged on that issue by Borksi and Borksi has said he will make submissions to His Honour to treat the evidence of Houston as such. Ultimately, that is a question for His Honour.

Saying that Sisson said "nothing Borksi could disagree with" means nothing. Sisson was able to be cross examined by Collinson on all issues - it was up to Collinson to robustly cross examine him if he thought appropriate, not Borksi. If you felt that Sisson came across better as a witness, well Collinson is the one you should be looking at.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with Borksi and how he put questions to Houston. Actually the complete opposite, he appears to be a very good advocate.

Can't say I heard the last comment so I have no view on it.