Paraphrase the text:

Question

In summary, the respondent banks raised four issues, albeit that different
respondent banks relied, on some or at least one of the following:
1. the referral has not complied with the requirements of the 2020 order of this
Court in that the Commission failed to plead facts which that order required
the Commission to do in its redrafted referral affidavit.
2. the referral failed to demonstrate the existence of personal and subject
matter jurisdiction in respect of peregrini banks and subject matter
jurisdiction in respect of incola banks and local peregrini banks;
3. the referral is vague and embarrassing in that insufficient facts was set out
in the referral affidavit to show that the respondent banks had joined and/or
participated in a single overarching conspiracy,
4. certain of the respondent banks were improperly joined by the Commission.

Answer 1

In conclusion, the responding banks raised four points, although different banks focused on some or at least one of the following concerns:

1. The referral does not meet the requirements set by the Court's 2020 order, as the Commission failed to present the necessary facts as mandated in the revised referral affidavit.
2. The referral does not establish personal and subject matter jurisdiction for peregrini banks, nor does it provide subject matter jurisdiction for incola banks and local peregrini banks.
3. The referral is unclear and problematic, lacking sufficient details in the affidavit to prove that the respondent banks were involved in a single overarching conspiracy.
4. The Commission improperly included certain respondent banks in the referral.