"Well put but wrong in law. ANZ lent money to Opes based on a pool of shares that belonged to Opes"
This is just not right BBQ. There will definitely be an argument put to the courts that clients never transferred ownership to Opes Prime. This could be due to the lending agreement being defective, lack of disclsoure on behalf of Opes Prime, no meetings of the minds or the client not having the capacity to enter into the agreement i.e. super funds. If Opes did not have ownership it was therfore not in a position to offer the assets as security to ANZ. Therefore ANZ is selling assets that belong to someone else regardless of the agreement that they entered into with Opes Prime. It is way too early to make such arguments and we just don't have the facts.
I only write this because you seem adamant that legally your opinion is 100% correct where it actually is not even close.
As another point I continue to read people post that Opes Primes clients were 'sophisticated investors'. This is not a throw away subjective line but is set in the Corporations Act to which there are a number of tests. Were these tests met? No! Did clients provide letters from accountants stating that they held over 2.5M in assets and earned over $250,000 per year? No!
The clients of Opes Prime were not necessarily sophisticated investors so the argument of lack of disclsoure is very relevant.
