In contract law there is the concept of laesio enormis, a...

In contract law there is the concept of laesio enormis, a humungous wrongdoing that cries out for legal redress. In this post I refer to the meaning of the words per se, not their application in contract law, which simply allows a contract to be set aside on the basis of unconscionability. There is no contract that NEA retail shareholders can set aside, but a great wrongdoing is in the offing, IMO.

Because of my age, I do not share the long-term dream that younger shareholders had, and I skipped out of NEA at $2.10 recently, and about two years ago at circa $2.75. Consequently, I do not have an incentive to bother about the perceived humungous wrong. But if I were aggrieved, I would:

• articulate the perceived wrongdoing;
• point to HC posts to evidence widespread feeling of being wronged;
• feed that to the press, particularly the Australian Financial Times;
• make a case of perceived wrongdoing to ASIC, politicians and whomever; and
• attempt to get a class action going, if the foregoing action does not elicit it..

Management has for a dozen years used shareholders' funds to develop NEA, and seduced many to believe that investing in NEA would be a life-changing investment, which Management is now advocating be swapped for a mess of pottage.

It would, IMO, be very easy (a few hours of effort) to turn this story into a national scandal.

The contrary view is that the foregoing is the ramblings of an old codger in his dotage.