opes legal issues

First, I'm not a ANZ shareholder and I never have been.

Second, I'm always happy to be proved wrong and learn from the experience. So here's my "simplistic and wrong", as has been put, understanding of the legal issues.

I've read the statement of claim and, though long winded, it is basically the same as this:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2008/998.html

This contains an excellent one-page summary by Emmett J of the plaintiff's arguements in another Opes case.

Let's be clear, the entire case hinges on proving that ANZ was a party to OPES' misleading and deceptive conduct, as per the Trade Practices Act. There is no other legal issue that I can detect.

Emmett J puts it best (if you replace Merrill with ANZ, this is basically your contention):

The complication that gives rise to the present application is that shares were transferred by the Applicant, at the direction of Opes Prime, to Merrill Lynch Singapore The Applicant says that the shares were transferred pursuant to the Agreement on the basis of that fraudulent misrepresentation, such that the Applicant retained beneficial ownership of the relevant shares. The Applicant contends for that result, either on the basis that the representation was incorporated as a term of the Agreement or gives rise to a construction of the Agreement favourable to the Applicant’s case, or that, by reason of the fraud, there was no parting with beneficial ownership of the relevant shares.

The Applicant points to the fact that it was not until some time after the transfer that Merrill Lynch Singapore asserted any beneficial interest in the shares as owner, as distinct from an interest as mortgagee or chargee. The Applicant’s case is that Merrill Lynch Australia, advanced money to Opes Prime and made claim to be entitled to the shares in question on the basis that Merrill Lynch Singapore is in effect a depository.