Why would the defendants open with hearsay. There is plenty of factual evidence they can open with.
The ASIC audits on the performance share, the audit of the performance share structure at the time of listing, the documentary evidence of discussions between ASIC and ASX that show a preconceived outcome of guilt prior to any actual collection of evidence, the lengths ASIC went to get illegally obtained data from an entity ISX never did business with.
ISX will have evidence of all the other integration work they did since they started until this very day. The communication between them and their customers. Is there consistency with how they manage their projects? I hope so, but I don’t know.
The continued sales growth is likely to also work in their favour.
Then we have the audit of the contracts by Clayton Utz.
Further, there is no evidence of selling of the performance shares. Why not sell if they weren’t obtained legally or at the expense of shareholders.
We have the demerger and the shareholder support for the demerger. This demonstrates shareholders are willing to take a vote on issues facing the company. Why not call an EGM for the dismissal of the CEO and MD if they thought they were taken advantage of? This goes to the heart of what ASIC is trying to prove.
I dare say there its considerable evidence that suggests ASIC was going out on a limb to assist ASX with the gripe ASX had against ISX. The ASX held the working relationship with ASIC and ASIC let them go beyond the duties of the operating license. We have to ask ourselves why.
The ASIC case for me, always was a saving of face for the ASX.
The regulator couldn’t have the market operator being sued for breaching it’s market license and for breaching of the corporations act. This would be very embarrassing for both parties.
The only thing ASIC could do was to try and conjure up a case. I am speculating here, but I think there is a reasonable probability of this, and this is what we have here.
SP1 Price at posting:
$1.07 Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
