yeah after a week of listening to counsel the jury will make...

yeah after a week of listening to counsel the jury will make their own mind up

Opes plays beautifully to a jury in these times, how many jurors are going to side with a bank during these times? god I wish I was the barrister for the Opes folk! What theater there is to be had of it.

sure they are going to look these normal everyday folk in the eye and think "you silly greedy people you deserve what you get" lol and yes I think the Fink in end is a good egg .

thats the underlying message in this , ANZ are in a hiding to nothing, good bankers would have seen this from the start, base commercial law says to watch your security agreements when close to insolvent, its complete amateur hour theatrics to play those kind of games, it reflects very poor banking supervision of a very large secured borrower, ANZ execs should have been camped in Opes and they were not ? why ?

and with co branding you cant claim the "we werent aware defence" good risk management would have had ANZ review and approval for all Opes marketing messages, material etc, thats ANZs right as a lender, thats why a lot of this discussion is naive , "best practice" in this area would have a complete supervisory and audit role being carried out by ANZ.

"well Opes if you want $1B then we need to have the following agreement on the debt security supervision"

its gobsmacking that ANZ were not checking the margin situations of the Opes clients, its a basic piece of the loan covenant

thats the business model for securities lending the fact that ANZ wasnt doing it is a reflection of how lost they were at the time

then they seized and sold assets they just acquired? while Opes directors were shrieking fraud !!!!fraud !!!!! and they were ex ANZ Insto execs anyway??

good luck with that ANZ :)

Tcis all for my own amusement nothing more:)