Don't confuse a peripheral tactical loss to the much broader and...

Don't confuse a peripheral tactical loss to the much broader and important SOC litigation - the tactical former does not outweigh the strategic latter - that is yet to be litmus tested with an independant arbitrator - thankfully.

The injunction loss certainly doesn't in any way, provide vindication to ASX with regard to their vague and obscure market SOR.

The Visa issue is an open issue for me, but thats it - nothing conclusive either way.

If we triaged all of the opaque accustations within ASX's SOR and assign them a number between -1, 0, +1 on the basis of provable evidence, neutral, unprovable evidence, its highly likely you'd find the value would be positive - that is in favour of ISX. I've done the back of enevlope exercise on the balance of what is known, and that has formed my current position. If there was something of essence, then ASX would have ventilated it.

The language for each of the SORs itself couldn't possible lead any fair and reasonably thinking person, who applies principles of justice, to the conclusion of non guilt. Now that may change when the case is finger printed in court, but we haven't reached that point, so there's nothing to ascribe to JK amd the management team other than allegation, which as far as I know is not enough to draw an accurate conclusion either way.