The first is between the client and Opes. In that agreement the client can regain their shares by paying out their margain loan.
The second agreement is between Opes and the Bank. We are not privy to that but it appears (by the action of the Bank) that the Bank has security over all the assets and undertakings of Opes. (this would ba normal). The bank are taking possession of those assets and selling them to discharge the Opes debt. In effect, the Bank is discharging the liability to itself then selling the Opes share portfolio. Again, this is normal lending practice in the event of a default.
This leaves the Opes clients with a claim against Opes. (they can't claim against the Bank as they have no agreement with the Bank) It appears that there will not be sufficient funds in the end to make much of a payment as these type of Receiver Appointed administrations are very costly.
Finally, if Opes can't pay, an action may be instigated against the directors. They will by this time have probably divested their assets and may make a small offer to clear the matter. Maybe better than nothing.
Quite frankly, the law is inadequate in protecting high risk takers from loosing their money to dubious schemes.
It will most likely become a lifelong bad memory for those involved and most will be overcautious for the rest of their lives.
I know. I was done over by a panel of banks many years ago. The law does not deal in common sense or morality.
Best of luck guys, but I think you are probably tossing good money away and wasting time better used to make a come back.
