Some may recall this article from April...

Some may recall this article from April 23:

http://business.theage.com.au/opes-clients-legal-tangle-a-dilemma-for-the-courts-20080423-27ws.html?page=2

"In the netting-off scenario, if a client had vested say, $500,000 of shares with the company in return for borrowing $200,000 to buy more shares, they would only be able to claim $300,000; based on a 30% distribution, they would get only $100,000 back. If they could pursue their claim directly against ANZ or Merrill Lynch, they might — and only might — get 100% back."

So what if the shares you bought for $200k that were funded from Opes were reinvested back into the portfolio? Are they saying you don't get a return on that portion under liquidation? What if you then borrowed more money on that extra capital injection? Gotta say, I am still confused.