opes alleged statement, page-48

I think that's the first post i have had moderated. But i take on board comments made previosuly about Business Spectator's very specific copyright restrictions about reproducing their on-line content.

The article i was commenting on was commenting on the interview this moning on Inside Business (abc link above).

Link to aricle - http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/ANZ-flags-Opes-settlement-HT2RC?OpenDocument

The remainder of the moderated post read as follows:

Look at the spin here, ANZ is such a great corporate citizen that it wishes to settle so that Opes client's don't have to spend 20 years of protracted litigation to recover what they are entiled to from ANZ...

Does Smith have any conscience at all? What has the effect of this been to smaller retail investors that lost their life savings? The effects have been disatorous to people personally and their families.

In the "20 year" statement is he trying to highlight the fact that if the offer is not accepted ANZ will litigate the proceedings in a heavy handed and unethical manner to wear down the opponents? When do proceedings drag on for 20 years these days???

Its times like this I wish Australia was more inclined to award exemplary damages in proceedings, maybee this will be the case that makes exemplary damages more common in the Australian Court jurisdiction.

Definition: Exemplary damages serve to provide the claimant with recovery above and beyond compensatory damages in order to punish the wrongdoer for egregious conduct and to deter the wrongdoer and others from similar conduct in the future.