opes mediation extended

A little known fact, just confirmed by FH, is that official mediation was extended 3 days and now concludes tomorrow COB. FH plan to send out an email tomorrow night or Friday.

The above is a fact, the rest is pure conjecture and I would prefer it to be known as such, but not deleted because I believe it to be a valid theory...

Unless the extension is a ruse to try prove to everyone that they nearly got a deal but didn't quite manage, whilst actually having stuff all the whole time, I think there is some small possibility of a settlement offer.

If so, I assume this offer may have the two "pots" alluded to by JL at the meeting.

Pot 1 is the preferences money, and would be divvied up according to the liquidation date (or notice of default date) and voting rights will be in accordance with the balance at that time, or $1 if you are in the red. Like it or lump it, this seems to be Da Fink's Law.

If I'm correct, this makes people who's position has improved more powerful, thereby increasing the likelihood for it to meet the 50% of people and 50% of value criterion, if that is what is used to get it up or not.

Pot 2 is the "sweetener pot" and is a bit more of a mystery. There has been some suggestion that this, if offered, could be awarded to clients pro-rata as of the "fairer" date of 27th March in order to stave off litigation.

It is very unclear if Pot 1 is conditional on acceptance of Pot 2, which would, no doubt, include a no future litigation waiver. If it is then it makes Pot 1 effectively conditional on a "no future litigation" waiver and this seems a bit rough.

I think that clients should be given the chance to accept Pot 1 and reject Pot 2 in favour of their own funded or otherwise litigation for damages, ie. in a non-paternalistic way,

Of course, Pot 1 and Pot 2 would both be low-ball, and the reason for this is that ANZ could argue that if it all goes to court the funders would take 40% anyway, in 5 years time, if they win.

If we get an unconditional Pot 1 then I do not think the litigation groups can touch it, or at least they should not be allowed to do so because this is a technical legal\financial matter and is unrelated to damages. I don't think we can have individuals wading into that pot to settle 100% of thier own claims.

So, my favourite would be a quick resolution to Pot 1, and then the freedom to litigate, or not, for damages.

I hope I haven't offended anyone. I don't believe I am giving anyone any bad ideas to use against us that haven't been thought of already.