m.west on anz, page-130

very misleading isn't it ! I agree !

The reference to "custodian" is probably deliberately misleading. Having on-lent the shares to ANZ ( or ANZ nominees ) under a stock lending agreement would not make ANZ either Opes' or the clients' custodian.

The stock lending agreement provides for adjustment for some corporate actions but voting is not one of them. How could it be ? when Opes could have sold the shares short , or on-lent them to some other shorter? They could only vote the shares if they were still actually holding the borrowed shares, which would not apply to all clients but may well have applied to many of them.

Most shareholders are not very interested in voting. Under the stock lending agreement, the lender has no right to vote. Were ALL Opes clients offered the opportunity to vote ? Or only what I suspect is a few of them, like Terpu and the ADY guy and a few more like them ?