Ill add a few things. There are essentially three parties here...

Ill add a few things. There are essentially three parties here worth discussing in the context of the class action. 

1) Institutional Investors (overwhelming majority of holders)

This group wants two things. 1, put the legal woes to bed. 2, generate significant revenue growth. The largest of the holders participated in one of three capital raises (IPO, 80c, A$4). They are highly incentivized to opt out. Why? You think they want to give retail investors a chance at taking any of their capital injection? You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. By opting out, they can put this entire class action to bed. These class action lawyers and litigation funders will walk away if/when the opt out results show an enormous majority choose not to support the action. 
 
2) Retail investors

This group is in the minority although they are by far the most vocal. If institutional investors thought there was even a chance that these claims could be material, you would see retail investors put at the back of the line. 

3) ASIC

ASIC has a core mandate to enforce and regulate company and financial services laws to protect Australian consumers, investors and creditors. This entire civil statement of claim (if true) is basically a step by step display of how a regulator time and time again failed to do anything until it was too late. ASIC thinks that this is now a display of strength where it is actually a display of how they have failed. AGAIN. Its an absolute embarrassment for Australia that regulators provide a stage for startups to list yet don't provide the regulatory oversight until the very people they are meant to protect, are harmed. The fact that this body thinks the commonwealth (as opposed of shareholders) should benefit from their actions (via civil litigation) should infuriate every single shareholder to no end.