By Susannah MoranSeptember 27, 2008 07:48amANZ and Merrill Lynch...

By Susannah Moran

September 27, 2008 07:48am

ANZ and Merrill Lynch are trying to stop two Opes Prime clients from amending their legal cases against them, arguing the changes are embarrassing and liable to be struck out of the NSW Supreme Court.
Lawyers for former Opes Prime clients Melewar Steel Ventures and John Terpu, general manager of Conquest Mining, ANZ and Merrill Lynch appeared before Justice Reginald Barrett, The Australian reported.

If Melewar and Mr Terpu are successful in being able to expand their claims, they are likely to get internal documents relating to the banks' thinking and decision-making relating to the timing of when they lodged substantial shareholder notices with the Australian Securities Exchange.

The Opes Prime clients want to argue that ANZ and Merrill Lynch contravened the section of the Corporations Act that deals with lodging shareholder notices with the ASX.

"It seems that one or the other of them, since we transferred the shares, has had more than a substantial interest, which should have been disclosed if they were the owners of the shares," Melewar and Mr Terpu's barrister Francis Douglas QC told the court.

"When you have more than 5 per cent you have a positive obligation to that company (to disclose)." In the case of Melewar, Mr Douglas said that had Merrill Lynch lodged such a notice earlier, then Melewar would have become aware of this and taken action then.

Merrill Lynch lodged its notice in Jindalbie Metals on April 2, five days after Opes Prime was placed into administration, the court heard.

The Opes clients also want to expand their misleading and deceptive conduct claim and claims of breaches of fiduciary duties.

Appearing for Merrill Lynch, Noel Hutley SC said the amendments were "embarrassing" and said there were no facts to support the claim that there was a fiduciary duty owed to the Opes clients

ANZ also wants to knock out parts of the claim that deal with whether ANZ would have known its logo was being used on an Opes Prime document that told investors they would retain beneficial ownership of the shares they lodged with Opes.

Justice Barrett reserved his decision.