That is more incorrect, unsubstantiated waffle. The correspondence "not pictures of BS" as you try to spin them was legitimate wasn't challenged. In fact ISX paid for their own independent expert to argue to the court why the VISA breach wasn't material - they never argued the existence of them.
"Acting on behalf of iSignthis and its Cyprus-based founder John Karantzis, barrister Peter Collinson, KC, told Justice Timothy McEvoy that an expert for iSignthis named Gregory Houston concluded the disclosure would not have changed analysts’ estimates of future cash flows discounted to adjust for risks."
For what it's worth ASIC put forward their own expert the highly experienced successful fund manager Andrew Sisson to argue it was significant - of course it was, this wasn't one of the tin pot gaming co's it was global behemoth VISA cancelling due to AML concerns, although of course shareholders weren't aware of this because JK told you it was just a little paperwork mix-up.
So yes they were relevant, no their existence wasn't challenged by ISX and yes ASIC did take steps to prove the importance, did they succeed? Time will tell when the court rules but what you posted was simply incorrect.
SP1 Price at posting:
$1.07 Sentiment: Sell Disclosure: Not Held
