ASIC v ISX Hearing, page-544

the spitballing contentions etc were all at the time of the original suspension (which ISX seemed to welcome at the time, but let’s park that for now).. the original suspension reasoning has no relevance at all to this court case.. the actual suspension itself is only relevant as part of ISX’s defence on the VISA aspect (ie ISX was already suspended, so the non-disclosure shouldn’t be an issue).

My lay take on the proceedings and commentary so far:

- ISX will probably succeed in defending the VISA disclosure issue.. my money will be on the judge deciding that it should have been disclosed, but company and directors were acting in good faith.. even if they’re not found to be acting in good faith, it’s unlikely to be “serious” as it may not have significantly moved the market which was suspended at the time.. ASIC are putting forward their best arguments on both those points but it may not be enough to sway..

However the VISA matter is, imo, the smallest of the three

- ISX and JK/NK look shot on the 15% issue.. by most accounts the ASIC witnesses have agreed it was stated in error.. all the discussion and conjecture in here about it meant over the life of a customer is a false argument.. that can only be made if ISX had plenty of other examples of carrying out the integration work in the same way.. it doesn’t.. it didn’t do that before the 4 key contracts, and it didn’t do it again after (admitted in its own submission)..

- the party hasn’t started on the 4 key contracts, which is really the main case here.. will be interesting to hear the defendants rationale for entering in them in the manner that they did, at the time that they did.. the mad scramble to contract, deliver and invoice in the weeks prior to June 2018 sure adds a lot of support to ASIC’s case (plus the above mentioned fact that ISX never did them before, or again thereafter)