Nah that's wrong
@aniesbaswedan.
The agreement between ISX and ASX for listing is no different to the agreement ASX has with all companies. It is not "customised". it is standardised.
The issue here is if the ASX is using procedural fairness if its approach to ascertain if its concerns that ISX is in breach of the listing rules are true or false.
One could well argue that with no allegation made, and now 3 months having passed, that procedural fairness has not occurred.
In the ASX query letters, the ASX preamble sought to illuminate that FCorp, Nona and IMMO were on an ASIC watchlist and were bad actors. This is true, in Australia the evidence says these are bad guys. However, as ISX had NO business relationship with FCorp, Nona and IMMO in Australia, because they were not appropriately licensed. So that preamble disclosure by ASX was totally unnecessary and frankly irrelevant.
I reckon those disclosures were made to discredit ISX and fuel the media and popular opinion against ISX.
You bears give ISX far too much credit. They are not an agent of evil. They are nothing more than a simple service provider. If you have a license and you provide a licensed service, ISX will offer a service to make money (eg Binaries in Australia, because ASIC allow it). If ASIC ban it then they will immediately stop providing the service eg OT Capital/Traderfinancial and TradeQ
A service provider is not a guarantor of its clients behaviour. That's the job of the regulator !
But the act of ASX to publicly disclose this is nothing more than dirty mud slinging and 100pc irrelevant.
The asx should be held to a higher standard that this. For me, this is clear evidence of an evidentary bias by ASX against ISX.
Get the popcorn ready, because I reckon DISCOVERY is going to be an absolute corker when the trial proceeds.
