If this is true then why is its response to the SOR so nonsensical? If you don't think so then feel free to read it and then explain to me which part of it isn't because I will prove to you otherwise.
Well do you think the ASX is guilty until proven innocent? Because you guys were very happy to throw around numerous blatant accusations against the ASX despite not having a smidge of evidence.
What do you mean based on a hunch? You haven't read the SOR, have you?
No, the onus is on the claimant to prove its claims against the defence of the respondent.
Well, ISX's official response to the SOR is available for you to read. That document represents all of the arguments that ISX has against the SOR because the SOC quotes a lot from it. If that document is nonsense even to you then by extension it would also be nonsense to the judge. Changing the way it is presented would make no difference.
ISX vs ASX, page-297
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 1,597 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)