ISX Opinion Gallery, page-18

First 18 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
pastperformer

7,813 Posts.

2380

06/05/20

12:59

Post #: 44463087
Share

Originally posted by DannyBiggs: ↑

After a bit of digging around, I found this question by an old mate of ISX holders.

Then these two responses

And finally the quote in an AFR article that clears up what JK actually said.

So it does appear myself and skyva got it wrong here. As did you. I was sure I remembered correctly the phrase "not privy to" owners of entities as opposed to not being aware. Big difference in legal terms, as it implies he may or may not know (doesn't matter), but is under no obligation to disclose, unless a shareholder is deemed a related party under the corps act. Also, in the context of this quote by JK, the tip rat is pinning RED5 together with all owner entities by inclusion. So if it's a reasonably truthful couple of paragraphs at least, you could assume that JK was including RED5 in this quote, though not directly singling out RED5.
I am yet to find a thread or ANN where JK has actually made this statement, as there's too much ISX material to look through, but i'm sure such a reputable source would have it on record somewhere and other posters may know where to find it outside this article.

Expand

Ahh yes, that was a really controversy, that's what got the pot stirring I believe.

Originally posted by skyva: ↑

If you say I/we "are not privy to ownership of entities on our register" and you know the ownership of the entities on the register, then in my view you are not telling the truth. It might be different to say "entities are not required to disclose their ownership" but that is not what is quoted.

It beggars belief that
1. JK did not know his brother was involved.
2. That the ownership of shares concentrated into the family was not a matter shareholders/investor would find important
3. that once it came out, everyone would just accept that maybe, on a technicality, it was not a misstatement of the ceo's actual position.

There seem to be a lot of bush lawyers thinking there is a meaningful difference between "we are not privvy to" and "we don't know". I don't see a difference.

Expand

It's a can of worms. The pressure that was on ISX at the time answering with "I know, but I'm not obliged to tell you" would have just ended up putting more pressure on the company. I understand why he said it, and he wasn't wrong to say it.

However, could he have said something different which was more closely aligned to the truth? Yes he could have. But then, if you want to use that hardline logic you open yourself up to providing absolute 100% factual statement all the time without any ambiguity, and that's just not how we all go through life.

I still think that whole thing was a non-issue.

ISX Price at posting: $1.07 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
4 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

OCT

Octava Minerals joins the antimony train with high-grades on the radar at Yallagong, WA

Tonight's US CPI data could set the tone for November. What are markets expecting?

ARV

Smallcap Artemis Res' jumps 23% on six digit gold grade rockchip find at Titan

ARB

Court process clears way for ARB to buy up 4 Wheel Parts business in the US

IMA

Issues emerging as Australian companies tackle critical minerals challenge