disclosure, page-63

Charles
Thanks for the great post

It has stopped the conversation in its tracks.

Our proposition is not if ANZ knew or what it Knew.

It is it knew always..

When you co-brand a company document such as a FSG you are intimate with the Business its model and its public communications.

ANZ at the inception were there at the birth.(Circa 2004) as the sole financier.

When you(ANZ) are relying on Opes to supply you "good" title to support your loans..you know and have approved every detail on how about they go about generating that business and how title flows.

We assert that ANZ were gravely deficient in allowing the(ANZ Endorsed) (pre 2008 FSG and Condensed Amsla) enter the market..as a mechanism of wholesaling their funding.

We assert that ANZ were so reckless in allowing this documentation to gain their security ..that they equally "OWN" it deficiencies.

This is a Wholesale Retail partnership ANZ/Opes .

We argue that the documentation given to clients was less than 50% required by the Corporations Act.

The will be agjudged in the course of litagation.

We assert ANZ was reckless to its own interests and reckless to the clients interest.And the client as the provider of securities to ANZ is providing a benefit to ANZ and is the innocent 3rd party.

ANZ had a 4 year daily course of dealings with Opes and provided up to $700m and recieved $1bn in shares

ANZ will be found aware of The Equity Finance Product offered by Opes..it was first offered in 2004 and was offered with the below features up to the feb 2008

The key written feature of this offering is;

It is like a margin loan
The client retains economic and beneficial title
The transaction can be reversed at any time

We suggest over 90% of the dealings and security provided was based upon Equity Finance (aka Margin Loan)

Further, ANZ had a positive legal duty to inform the market and the client of its Beneficial Ownership..it did not

Another case of Mistake or oversight or recklessness but one that cannot be ignored.

We believe ANZ's assertion of no knowledge will not be sustainable.

Remember we are now entering the Nuremberg phase ,the Germans stunned the allies with their record keeping..in this age of email record keeping is even more detailed. The e in email i am told from legal circles stands for evidence.

The innocent 3rd party by ANZ argument in this observers view ,is a complete charade...we are not overly disturbed by the failure of the requests for injunctions...this thing is won for the clients by a full aeration of the facts and conduct..which requires a little more time to piece together.