ISX Opinion Gallery, page-2

In ISX v ASX, define winning for either party?

1A You could argue that ASX wins by keeping ISX from trading shares. I don't think that is their end game, but it is simple and ties in with the ISX tin foil hat wearer's who think ASX is out to get them (and the journos, courts etc).

1B If you ask ASX they are likely to say a win is that companies that are listed comply with the corporations act and listing rules. SO if ISX complies, it is a win for ASX and ISX.

For ISX winning might be:
2A: having their position justified in court. Suspension lifted, keep bonus shares, no disclosure of customers, finances, or how they made their money in 2018. Also a fat damages cheque for the wrongful suspension. IMHO the chance of this happening is vanishingly small
2B: getting their shares trading again in a reasonable timeframe.
2C growing the company for all holders.

Also, probably need to define ISX: is it the company, the small shareholders (who post here) or the major shareholder/management group. You might argue why not all three, well the tactics are somewhat mutually exclusive, ISX need to pick one or two, not three)

Pretty complicated really. Each seem to want different things and would be willing to give up something different to get it.

However from what I have read, ASX seem to be on pretty good footing with the suspension, if not from a purely evidentiary bases, at least with the power they have been given under the Act/listing rules.

ISX's current strategy is strongly biased towards 2A, probably at the expense of 2B and C. Spending all this time and effort fighting the ASX has delayed lifting of suspension, caused queries by the likes of visa, cost money and management time. Strategy 2A favours current management as majority shareholders at expense of smaller holders.

At present, the ASX's strategy for 1A and 1B looks the same, so they don't seem to need to change much. They have the ISX shares suspended, a win in court, they have been able to release a damaging report, ISX enablers such as Visa are suspending as well, and the press is sinking the boot in whenever they can.

ISX's strategy seems apparent as their management seems to like to butt its head against the brick wall and blame everyone else. Until management either change, or change tactics, it is going to be a long 12-18 months for minority holders. But maybe the hail mary pass will succeed.
Also, ISX has a bit of an issue, in that previously it said it didn't know who the shareholders in Red 5 were and couldn't control them. Now they are saying that to get to 2B: shares trading, these previously unknown shareholders will put shares into some form of escrow. ASX requires to know who these shareholders are, and will require comprehensive documentation from these shareholders regarding agreement to any escrow. If I was ASX I would want the ability to cancel the shares under escrow made clear, if they don't have that power already. Also, disclosure of further financial details of disputed transactions. ISX may not want to provide this as it may cloud the trial when trying to win under scenario 2A. Divide and conquer for ASX.

My advice is for ISX to abandon plan 2A, and put every effort into 2B and 2C. That would cost management hundreds of millions of dollars, and it seems they are happy to fight it out with company money.

So to answer who will come out on top, we are only in the first quarter (football analogy) but so far ASX has kicked way more goals, and ISX are fighting with the umpires as well as the other team. Also the commentators (press) are panning ISX. If they don't drag their captain, the next three quarters look like going the same way, imho.