SP1 0.00% $1.07 southern cross payments ltd

Isx vs AFR, page-189

  1. 1,294 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 370
    Thanks for the reply @ChillingOut

    I think what I was looking for was something deeper within the wording "absolute discretion". I am not challenging that ASX don't have absolute discretion to do what they want ie. suspend ISX, but the my understanding is the court will want to explore what the basis for the decision. The basis for the decision relates to the discretion used by ASX to suspend ISX.

    The defence states, that if the court requires ASX to point to a reason for the suspension, that they rely on the price query from the 12th of September, this being the basis for the decision and use of absolute discretion to suspend ISX on the 2nd of October. The discretion to suspend then linked to listing rule 17.3, and then linked to paragraph 52 about the obligation to use listing rule 17.3 to comply with the market operation license.

    I hope I am not confusing you with the way I have worded this.

    So it is my opinion that relying on the "absolute discretion" clause doesn't fit the other statements in the ASX defence.

    if they are relying on paragraph 52, then they aren't using "absolute discretion", in my opinion. They are using their power to suspend to comply with their market operator license.

    I don't think you can have it both ways. I could be wrong though. just trying to interpret all the information I have read and make some sense of it.

    If they are relying on their "absolute discretion", then they are not relying on the power to suspend to comply with their license, I would think.

    Anyway, thought it was a good Segway into a more in-depth discussion about the defence.
 
watchlist Created with Sketch. Add SP1 (ASX) to my watchlist

Currently unlisted public company.

arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.