This is important @bgtaylo, but I think for other reasons: " (a) in those cases where ASIC is satisfied that a significant contravention has occurred and where sufficient evidence exists, take enforcement action or administrative action;"
My questions:
One year on, and ASIC's commitment to "review all referrals from ASX within a reasonable time", does this mean that we do not know what "reasonable time" means?
Since ASIC has not taken enforcement action or administrative action, can we assume therefore that ASIC is not satisfied that a significant contravention has occurred?
Since there is no evidence that ASIC has discussed anything with ISX, does this also point to the fact that ASIC does not see a discussion with ISX as "appropriate"?
Has ASIC instead, "decided not to take any specific action?" But why? Is it because of:
The dependency of Australia's financial systems on the ASX monopoly as they have stated so many times?
Fear that doing the "right thing" will undermine ASX's authority in regulating the listing rules?
Disagreement, confusion, insecurity over just what "absolute discretion", ASX's power under 17.3 and 18.7 means and intends to get clarity from the courts?
Fear of doing the "wrong thing", so might as well just let this drag on in the courts and let the courts decide?
It may be safe to assume that ASIC is showing itself to be a "paper dragon" and incapable of controlling/managing the real dragon.
