Round 2 ISX vs ASX, page-737

Thank you for the post.

That is very damning.

So now we know for a fact that the independent expert had not been given the VISA correspondence by ISX, in other words, ISX has been withhelding that information from the experts. That is factual now.

Now the zealots would argue in defence of ISX as usual, most likely by presenting this...


...as proof that CU (Clayton Utz) has cleared ISX of anyajor disclosure issues, and they would be absolutely wrong. People need to remember the points that I've made in my earlier posts that CU's position was that it must believe/accept everything that ISX gave or said to it. In essence, CU was required to act in good faith, as a professional. The supplementary report that is referred to in ISX's latest reply vindicates those points entirely. The quote below is taken from the supplementary report:


Those two points outlined above, points (a) and (b), served as the foundation on which CU formed their views regarding the VISA disclosures. Both of them were based on pure assumptions.

For point A:

CU had believed that the termination was invalid simply because ISX had said that it was the case, and it was never in the position to challenge it. The quote below is taken from the supplementary report...



The ASX had asked ISX for the legal advice and ISX has been refusing to comply. Here is another quote taken from the supplementary report:



Notice the liberal use of the word assumptions?

For point B:

This one is pretty straight forward