@itzgr82balive Great piece - seems to sum up nicely the avenue...

@itzgr82balive Great piece - seems to sum up nicely the avenue of attack ISX is likely to follow in the court case with an abundance of evidence that will support their arguments. We are still missing a lot of pieces - we know some of what discovery turned up, not all. You mention as much in the line after point VI. This is the problem, we are all posting with only some of the facts and all of the facts may reveal something different than what we think by only referencing the disclosed facts. ASX will have a defense to these arguments and is keeping mum for the moment on discovery. JK is selectively making public records obtained on discovery, ASX has to do date used its MAP reporting system to push its narrative. Just saying; more is going to be revealed and you may or may not like it.

Re OM - I didn't ever really think they would have much to do with the case. Just thought it was some Hong Kong hedge fund (outside our jurisdiction) who commissioned the report, shorted the shares and then accidentally leaked it into an uninformed market which might create panic. This is a well worn path and regulators need to stop this. But I am intrigued that Dean P sent the report to the ASX on same day it was published. For what reason? It would not be in his client's interest assuming he is still short. The client would have had to pay the borrow cost for 2 years and not book a profit - better to keep it trading so the client could decide when to close his short. Maybe he sent it to the ASX to cover his A$$? Can't think of any other reason he would do it.

His continuing involvement is cos ASX took the bait U guess.