I cant see how the arrangements between Opes and its clients can lead to the clients having beneficial interest, and really owning their shareholding.
As soon as directors of companies placed their shares with Opes, then they ought to have filed a change in substantial holding reducing their substantial holding in their respective companies.
An equivalent change in substantial holding would have had to be put forward by either Opes or the ANZ dependent on their arrangements.
If this had been enforced by ASIC and the ASX, then there is no way directors shareholdings would have ended up in this state, as they would have lost their voting power surely. Consequently this whole mess wouldnt have got to this point, as people would have understood what placing their shares with Opes really entailed.
The ASX should also be a respondent to a class action in my belief. Surely they had a duty to enforce the regulation of the market properly. I presume they have also been paid for their regulatory services in effect by the clients since they have paid brokerage for transactions through the ASX for which the ASX has itself received fees.
Correspondingly they could be found to have been negligent in the execution of the services for which they have been paid.
I think ASIC and the ASX are a disgrace, for allowing this to happen. This is the field in which they are supposedly experts. So am not shy to say I believe them to be incompetent. Heads should roll at the ASX and ASIC over this.
---- Since Im not an expert in the law, could a lawyer or law student comment on whether there is any argument the ASX could be found to have been negligent?
