[email protected], page-105

Suing Aus Super has zero impact on PLS holders.
My point was simply that it appears some Aus Super members were happy to take advantage of an option where they could chose high risk investments and want to assign blame to AS for failing to protect members from their own incompetence.
As far as I see it AJM breached their covenants and failed to present a solution to completely resolve the issue with noteholders by the deadline.
It's quite obvious that even if AJM management launched a CR for a restructure in the week before the deadline they would not have had the funds available to pay on time. The size of the proposed raise as reported in the media would have required shareholder approval at a general meeting and was likely contingent on FIRB approvals as well.
I think it is a cop out to blame AS when it was the members' failure to adequately perform ongoing due diligence when those holders must have known on some level the risks involved with playing in the speculative end of the market.
This was a company that had a history of not having funds to meet interest payments, was continuously seeking waivers for various covenant breaches, and had been assessed by ratings agencies as high risk in regards to a default.
I would be more sympathetic if posters seeking to blame the likes of AS admitted they understood it was a high risk, high reward option to continue holding AJM and took some responsibility for their own actions.