Mr Doyle told the court the pair could not have breached their directors' duties to shareholders, as they were the sole shareholders and sole directors of a company he said was solvent at the time in question. He said if the Cassimatis had exposed Storm Financial to harm, they were entitled to do as the sole directors and shareholders.
Mr Doyle also argued that ASIC had audited Storm in 2005 - three years before the company collapsed with $3 billion in debts - and the watchdog did not raise any concerns that Storm was at risk of contravening the Corporations Act.
Here, Justice John Reeves commented that the auditor, quote "might have discharged their duties less than appropriately". He added, "I'm not saying they were".
Later, ASIC sought to persuade the court of its chances of success in prosecuting the Cassimatis for breaching their directors' duties.
Addressing the Cassimatis argument that they could not have breached their directors' duties to shareholders, as they were the sole shareholders and directors of a solvent company, ASIC counsel Peter Flanagan SC said the corporation's law applies when a director exposes a company to actual or potential harm.