$50 per share in 2017, page-100

Some of the issues are complex and if before a jury could go either way.

Other issues appear quite simple and in general a judge will direct the jury (if there were a jury) to an obvious conclusion.

In any case, what ASIC did or didn't let Ahmed Fahour get away with is not particularly relevant. One main action would be between OP/Liquidators and ANZ in relation to preferential security; the other between ex-clients of OP and the banks with some claims already filed with the courts and details available to the public.

Point taken that if ASIC had been doing their job they may now be in a position to control or affect this process; but they're not and I'll be surprised if they sudenly come out of the woodwork now.

In any case, it appears the mediation has resulted in an offer which FH believe is good enough to present to the Committee of Creditors. Given that the Committee can refer any offer to the creditors in general for consideration, I can't see any reason why they wouldn't put it forward unless it is ridiculous or unless one of the representatives from a class action funder argues against putting it forward to protect their own potential for profit. Even a low offer could be put forward by the Committee without risk as it would still be subject to acceptance by creditors.

As for offer distribution, I've mentioned here before that people tend to believe that the outcome which is best for them personally is actually the fairest outcome for all concerned, and that the parties that are the least aligned with their position are the most "greedy" or "unjust". Actually, (personal opinion only) the law, judges, and lawyers, have a much better sense of fairness than your average punter; including Finkelstein and Chernov. I think we can expect a settlement offer with valuations based on a combination of Finkelstein's ruled netted off value and March 27.