>>>>>ANZ lent money to OPES to do their deals, and took shares as collateral.
it reads to me that ANZ lent money to OPES to do their deals, and took _someone elses_shares as collateral.
>>>>>>That's what banks do, to all sorts of businesses and propositions every day.
I'd like to know what consideration ANZ gave to those people whose shares they took collateral against, and were they warned that ANZ might also short sell those shares at the same time. Where also does fiduciary responsibility lie?
>>>>Blame the OPES creators and directors, and yes also the investors that got involved with the scheme.
what was this "scheme" you refer to?
>>>>>You cannot deny that the scheme as offered was very complex and risky, and in a falling market after 4+ years of growth it is inevitable that at the tail end of the boom some people are going to get burnt. It amazes me reading some of the losses that people are staring at despite all the warnings about the state of the market.
if you are sitting in cash, or have 1 or 2 shares geared, representing say 20% of your portfolio, how is this taking a risk. tail end? warnings about state of market? these people weren't investing in alpacas or tulips were they?
>>>>>Sad as it is, 1200 people getting caught up in this saga isn't going to stop the world turning.
well that negates the need for hot copper doesnt it.
>>>>They could have and should have sought independent financial advice before entering into such a complex and risky scheme.
agree. the last thing investors should do is listen to their sharebroker, or put their cash in a custodians account. have a heart.
i just read the contract you posted, can you identify where they say they own your shares? i couldnt see it.
i wonder, if it also said "we have rights to your firstborn" would it be an enforcable contract?
i'd say no one reads these terms and conditions. in 20 years of investing i haven't. it read pretty standard. if you get a margin call they can sell the securities. blah blah. do you think a reasonable person would assume they have handed their shares over to cover the losses of a 3rd party's dubious business deals?
what would a reasonable person expect what consideration have opes and ANZ provided in exchange for what appears to be a very one sides benefit?
"BROKERS RIGHT TO SELL CLIENT’S SPONSORED HOLDINGS If you fail to pay an amount due from a Transaction in accordance with the Market Rules, you agree that we have the right to sell any or all of YOUR securities"
"INDEMNITY You indemnify us (including our employees, agents and representatives) in respect of all sums of money, actions, proceedings, suits, claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses and any other amounts whatsoever arising out of any Order or Transaction or any default by YOU"
they also disallow you to " d) take the opposite position in a Transaction"
did ANZ?
my guess is that ANZ sell up, Opes goes under, people lose their investments. Lawyers sue Opes on behalf of clients, nothign there, Opes, and or its insurers Sue ANZ for various things, which i don't want to type because banks can get pretty nasty
