letters of demand sent to opes clinets, page-43

Swuzz

On a prima facie basis ...yes

Secondly ..i think there is a very strong defense ..on the first notice alone

There are multiple defenses ..but the simplest is reliance on the notice until actions on M+D are heard

My view is that Opes clients were never party to the alleged amsla

and if somehow they were .. it was due to m + D and it is defective and needs to be amended to maintain BO in favour of the client

Therefore creating a prior equity(over ANZ /Opes etc)

Or right of equity upon redemption ( the first Beconwood case)