Hopefully the tenant has a lease or "a contract" which will...

Hopefully the tenant has a lease or "a contract" which will specify what will happen in such circumstances. I only had a cursory look through the document which gave the terms of the BOLR. I think there is too much speculation on the BOLR arrangements, without anyone knowing a few things. One, did they use the same BOLR terms for everyone right from the start, or where the terms updated as time went on. And two, was there a term which governed a change of law, or illegal terms. This will only come out in the court case. I don't even know the wording of the RC judgement on the matter. I think it takes a bit more analysis than our expertise. No doubt the company was in a bind.

My personal feelings are that AMP is liable, based on my brief analysis. AMP had to change the BOLR following the RC. They took the chance to make it retrospective as they had nothing to lose. Either pay up straight away or pay up after a court case. Unlikely after the court case they would be liable for any more and could probably settle out of court.

I am just annoyed that shareholders should be in a position to speculate as the company has not quantified the potential cost.