ing's part in this.

Although ING has no legal responsibility for ILF, it is possible that ING would not want one of its family of funds to go under and that being the case might give ILF an infusion to get it over the hump ? This might be better to do than let it go under, even if it meant stumping up $50million to preserve the ING name. ING has to realise that although it has no legal responsibility, there would be a severe lack of confidence in any new ING product, and after all ING is not a johnny-come-lately Macbank or BNB.
Any thoughts??