SP1 (ASX) Treasure Trove

Originally posted by JoeSalami: ↑

"Based on the fact that ISX dropped the case after all evidence and hearings, but just before verdict, that's ~~probably~~ possibly the most reliable indication of the chances of success that the case had"

Of course your senses don't seem to be able to come to terms with the other possibility. that is ASX would have applied the typical 'deep pockets' corporate tactic and appealed the decision through the courts, delayed and obfuscated to the money run out. Its what corporation are renown against a much smaller entity.

In the beginning the motivation to sue them was wrong (because of the likelihood of the above) but right to exit because of the same.

Expand

Lol. OK, let me work that through logically. Let's look at the narrative from a pro-JK perspective.

A company has been suspended. The ASX have made several claims impugning the company and if it did relist, it'd be at a heavy discount due to reputational damage.
The CEO has been targeted in the media. He's been called all sorts of names and slapped with lawsuits.
The company sues the ASX, after several amendments, the suit is worth >$400m. The director claims to have received multitudes of evidence during discovery, and assures shareholders that there is huge, groundbreaking evidence.
The director's reputation continues to take a pounding. He offshores the company.
The case against the ASX arrives, and the company spends tens of millions of dollars fighting. They produce some evidence, but they elect not to use the huge, groundbreaking evidence. They assure shareholders that they still have it, that it was legal discovery so there's no qualms about it's authenticity or admissability, but they don't produce it in court. They don't provide rationale for why they wouldn't, they just don't.
After the court case against ASX is finished, we have a month or two to wait before verdict.

Now, if the verdict is in JK's favour, it would exonerate the director, restore the company's reputation, and add substantial value to the company. It could threaten the ASX's monopoly (which would help NSX) and result in many positive news cycles for the company and CEO. It would probably also cast a significant shadow over the ASIC case and strengthen your chances there given that you've now proved that the ASX/ASIC investigation cut corners and wasn't done fairly. You consider your chances of winning to be high, but fear that the ASX would then appeal the verdict, which might mean that you don't get the cash immediately.

So despite the other potential benefits to the company, you fold the case. Everyone walks away. You accept your reputational damage, and claim that after investing over $10m and several years in it, waiting for the verdict would distract from growing your business.

Am I missing something here? Is something in that narrative incorrect?