Gotta agree with most of that. Gotta separate the stuff from the...

Gotta agree with most of that. Gotta separate the stuff from the stuff.

Clayton Utz are a reputable firm, and they wouldn't have done the dodgy for Karantzis or anything like that. They'll have done what they were told to do - prepare a report using the scope provided by ISX. There's two debatable issues here, and neither of them are clear-cut in favour of anyone:
- Clayton Utz were mostly independent, but at the end of the day, their job is to represent their client. Their client is the person who signed the engagement. That was ISX. They wouldn't have dodgied it, but they'll have made judgements. That's normal though, and to be expected.
- The big one, and the one which is still debated: scope. ISX claim that they provided the scope that ASX requested. ASX dispute that and claim that the scope wasn't broad enough.

Who is right? No one here knows. Information not available.

Unfortunately, can't put a lot on it either way without the missing info.