opes related , page-34

Seems that the parties to the mediation have not managed to achieve an outcome which is satisfactory to the client creditors of Opes. Not surprising given that that those client creditors have not had a representative party in the mediation talks and have not been informed of the content of the mediation, nor been provided with a statement of account as to OP debts and assets on collapse or on liquidation.

The court's role is to make a ruling when the parties are unable to agree. This is where we are at right now. The mediation process has been given enough time and resources, and has not provided a satisfactory outcome in terms of offer amount, process, or transparency, and is potentially unlawful.

I intend to vote against the proposal if it remains similar to the current proposal and will do whatever I can to maintain my right to take legal action whether it is accepted by the creditor body by a vote or not.

The fundamental issue for creditors is not being addressed; that the banks have realised as cash the assets of OP on collapse, including client creditor assets, and have used last minute preferential security to avoid distributing the realised assets fairly among all parties.

I think there has been enough testing of the willingness of ANZ to negotiate. It's time to clearly specify all of the causes of action against ANZ/ML/OP and then determine which parties (ASIC/client lawyers) should proceed with the actions, and then get to it.