1. Please find me the document where ISX says it is "not privy to the ownership" of RED5. I have read through every public document and nowhere does it say that. I have posted ISX's responses below and there is nothing misleading or inaccurate. You are right, using LHC as an example is just plain wrong, although I doubt that JK would resort to listing shareholders of another company himself. I am sure that by the time he did disclose at least his brother as a shareholder in RED5 that he had received agreement from his brother to do so.
2. The fact that the categorisation of the income was maintained right up till ASX questioning has no bearing - especially since I maintain it is preposterous for them to have categorised it entirely as set-up and integration anyway. Who knows ISX's reason for allowing it at that point - expediency?
3. Most companies are not treated like ASX is treating ISX. You really cannot blame ISX for ASX being obstinate.
4. Vigorously disagree. None of us know what was in the "Draft reasons" report which was the document available to ISX when they applied for the interlocutory injunction. What we do know is that ASX dropped a fair bit from it before we got to see it as the "Final reasons". This will be fought out in court if we ever get there, and although ASX says what is shown to be untrue will be deleted or modified, it will already have caused the reputational damage. An excellent point which exhibits this is that you are still harping on with untrue statements about ISX and RED5 and this was not mentioned once in the "Final reasons" report.
Communications from ISX regarding RED5:
2019-09-13:Response to ASX Price Query
The Company also firmly rebuts the allegations that the ownership of iSignthis Ltd is“opaque”, with full disclosure of director interest and substantial holder interests having been made to the ASX per continuous disclosure requirements. The directors, subsequent to the grant of the performance rights to the vendoriSignthis Ltd (BVI), now hold their beneficial interests in separate entities each, as have been fully disclosed to the market on the 6th September 2018.
The report further asserts that the Company should comment on reasons for certain shareholders trading in the Company’s securities. As the shareholders in question are not directors of the Company, the Company has no basis upon which it would comment, noting that securities in a public company are traded by shareholders other than directors without reference to the company itself.
2019-08-17: Response to Ownership Matters Pty Ltd Report
“Ownership of ISX shares by directors is opaque: There was no factual basis for that suggestion.
Full disclosure of the directors’ direct and indirect interests has been made to the ASX pursuant to the company’s continuous disclosure obligations.
In particular, the direct and indirect interests of Mr Karantzis and all other directors of the company have been fully disclosed in Appendix 3Y notices on an ongoing basis, the most recent being filed with the ASX on 2 September2019.“
07-10-2019: Update re share price volatility suspension:
Red 5Solutions Ltd (“Red 5”)
PerformanceRights (Class A, B and C) were issued to a number of investors and staff who contributed to the performance of the Company in its initial years, as per the prospectus.
Red 5 acts as the entity that holds Performance Rights on behalf of a number of early-stage staff.
The Company can confirm that of the eight Angel Investors listed above just one individual also has holdings in Red 5. That person is Mr Andrew Karantzis, who has also worked as an employee of the Company as Chief Sales Officer and has been issued performance Rights.
The Company can confirm that no individual who can be classified as a “related party” underSection 228 of the Corporations Act (2001) has a shareholding in Red 5 or any beneficial or pecuniary interest in shares held in Red 5.
