8”Shine] could have used those retained earnings to fund the...

8

”Shine] could have used those retained earnings to fund the disbursements at no cost.”
and therein lies a true socialist and a commercial dolt!
Justice Michael Lee must have headed up the radical marches in his university days.
His commentary is an opaque version of socialism - from those according to their ability (SHJ shareholders) to those according to their needs (class action claimants).
Communism and socialism don’t work over the long haul Justice Michael Lee - look to the lessons of history.
Second point - always unacknowledged by socialists - FINANCE is a resource just like labour and machinery.
The cost of finance is interest. The cost of labour is wages. Would you ask that the wages be cut as well?
These large and very risky actions require both labour and financial resources, whilst not forgetting ‘know how’ and supportive intellectual assets and systems. The costs of these resources are legitimate costs of the action.

Yes, his honour has a legitimate case to query the type and cost of the funding - as I do too and frankly what they (Shine management) have done is to make a significant withdrawal on their bank of credibility and goodwill - not to mention commercial commonsense bordering on sniffing like rancid meat. But I am not sure a Judge - any judge - has a right to query financial decisions of a properly vested management entity unless there were grounds for illegality or perhaps a preferential payment action.

I really do feel there will be an interest adjustment, but hope it’s not material. The greater issue is what reputational damage has SHJ suffered because of this matter.