What if you're wrong about the ASX approving the terms of...

What if you're wrong about the ASX approving the terms of theconsideration?

I'm also glad that you're at least conceding that the contracts meet the technical definition of 'revenue' because that is what this will come down to in the end.

The SOR questions the substance of the revenue sure, but it is based on the supposition that revenue must meet their 'implied' definition.

If the work wasn't done then that's fraudulent. However if it was done, then like it or not, the performance hurdles were met.

I'm not defending the nature in which they were achieved, I think it was unethical at best. I'm just trying to illustrate that notions like substance have nothing to do with it. It comes down to the wording in the terms, whether ASX found these terms acceptable and whether the terms were met.