I'm exploring the possibility of class action. The only sensible way to proceed is to target entities capable of paying money eg through insurance as well as those who might have allegedly breached regulations. This post in no way is an allegation of any matters, just an indication of related parties that may bear further investigation. In no particular order, and again making no accusations, the following entities deserve scrutiny of their actions:
- Previous Directors & CEO
- Current accounting firm
- Previous accounting firm (they missed the "unofficial" arrangement with FC, for example)
- FC
There may be more than one entity (or even no entities at all), with any alleged culpability and/or neglect being assessed as anything from minor to major. Any civil actions to complement and/or be supported by whatever civil or criminal charges that may arise from ASIC's investigation, if that happens to be the case.
Questions:
(1) Do we have to wait for ASIC to complete the investigation? How long will this take?
(2) Which firms have expertise in this field?
(3) Should this be initiated by outside legal firms, or (for example) action taken by BIG's remaining rump? For example, do we go through the new Board, acting CEO, etc.?
(4) A letter campaign to local politicians, especially in light of current Bank RC would probably help raise some noise
(5) Asking media to take an interest.
Any other suggestions or comments appreciated. Be careful not to make accusations - at the moment, in the absence of any firm information of any kind we (the shareholders) are completely in the dark. Not even any company accounts published.
Again, nothing in this post is making any accusations about anybody, just raising ideas.
My view is that if the accounts had been properly stated then investors would not have been misled. Everything else is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if your tea leaves told you not to invest, or you had a bad feeling, or you thought the business model sucked. If the accounts had given a true picture then no investor would have been misled.
I'll repeat that in case you missed it: it's about the accounts and those who prepared them, published them or knew by virtue of private information not divulged to shareholders which showed that the accounts did not describe the true financial state of the company, over an extended period of time
Expand
