:
The strategy of the KPMG defence is implicit within the
first two paragraphs below:
And thank you Plumbob for taking the time and energy to post this invaluable information for those of us who wish to remain on Hot Copper for the remainder of the saga.
THE COURT NOTES THAT
1. The First and Second Respondents have filed a defence, dated 5 December 2012 (the KPMG Defence) alleging that MFSIM and its directors and officers including the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Twelfth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Respondents are concurrent wrongdoers, with the meaning of the proportionate liability legislation pleaded in paragraph 99(a) of the KMPG Defence. No party to these proceedings has pleaded any claim for contribution, damages or any other relief against any of those persons (the Nominal Respondents).
2. The Nominal Respondents are parties to these proceedings solely for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of section 24AI(3) of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) to enable the Court to determine any apportionment of the claims of the Applicants and the Group Members against the First and Second Respondents
OCV
octaviar limited
