Paragraph 7e&f, with regards to suspension on Oct 2, ASX defence states:
(ii) says further that it was not required to give particulars of the alleged issuesconcerning ISX prior to exercising its power to suspend; and
(iii) says further or alternatively, if it was required to give ISX particulars of thealleged issues concerning ISX prior to exercising its power to suspend, thatthe 12 September Price Query and 19 September Price Query constitutedparticulars of the alleged issues;So the two price queries that ASX sent ISX with regards to share price volatility, made within a week of each other, the first being a few days after the OM report, didn't satisfy ASX? (they may not have communicated it to anyone at the time, but we have an almost year long suspension as a result) Why then did it take almost 2 weeks after the second price query and without notice, to suspend ISX shares?This begs the question that I am sure many want to know. Why are ISX shareholders being punished for share price volatility as a result of the OM report?
ISX at the time responded with reference to the OM report and pointed out it's falsehoods and an intended response. Especially the questioning of the nature of the revenue and it's amount. (OM suggested ISX only beat the 3rd tranche milestone by $1347 and took it upon themselves to not include R&D rebates and interest as revenue which were clearly defined as revenue for the PS purpose.
One could only assume this to be accepted by ASX at the time as 2 weeks is a long time between drinks in this regard.
In fact, on October 1 ISX announced September GPTV figures of I think $1.9 b, an ever increasing figure which I think was around $1.1b announced for August. This staggering increase, which was of course questioned by some as rubbish, but later the detractors realised ISX changed their GPTV reporting from forecast to actual many months before, maybe early 2019?
Anyway, one could argue this figure could easily alarm those who saw ISX' rise as not in their best interests personally, who knows.In response to paragraph 26 of the SOCASOC FASOC 2FASOC, ASX:
(a) admits that on 1 November 2019, ISX provided ASX with a written response to theThird Query Letter together with documents (1 November Response);
(b) refers to and relies on the terms of the 1 November Response for their full forceand effect;
(c) admits that the 1 November Response asserted that it contained confidentialinformation not to be released to the market but does not know and thereforecannot admit that was the fact; and
(d) otherwise denies the allegations in the paragraphAnd with regards to the above, part c) ASX is saying that ISX told them there was confidential information, but couldn't be sure?
Is this acting in good faith?
part d) goes on to deny allegations? the ones where ISX said ASX couldn't guarantee confidentiality? IS this acting in good faith? Is this fair conduct in such a serious investigation?
This defence is littered with such rubbish as above, I cant be bothered going into anymore of it. There are many many more things Im sure other posters will highlight here, as some have already done. I will just read the rest of the defence again for a laugh and enjoy reading other posters comments in the coming days.
Expand
