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

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.