opes related , page-39

I think the way forward is to reject the current offer (if the court does not reject it first) and then petition government/ASIC to take as many of the causes of action as possible against OP/ANZ/ML to court. If there are serious causes of action which are not being brought by ASIC, these should be brought by client lawyers. It is unfortunate that the fees charged by litigation funders are very high and many clients will have to make a tough decision about whether they can expose themselves to individual risk of loss through non funded lawyers or expose themselves to loss of a large percentage of any recovery they might obtain through the court. I don't see any way around this basic problem that justice has become unaffordable for many.

It is possible that ANZ/ML may make other offers to settle prior to a court ruling. In this case, each client needs to handle it according to their own situation, however, at the moment one of the main reasons why I would suggest voting against the current settlement is that client creditors have not been provided with the information needed to make a decision regarding any settlement.

I also can't make any accurate assessment of a possible outcome, because I don't have the information either. From bits and pieces reported in various papers and in the affidavits lodged by FH, it seems as though if the preferential transactions undertaken by ANZ/ML in the last few days and weeks of OP operation had not been done, all creditors would been due a little over 90% of their net portfolio value on collapse. Without a financial statement of OPs debts and (seized) assets I can't confirm this estimate.

One way that ANZ/ML could approach this with a reasonable chance of a successful outcome for them and possibly acceptable for client creditors is to make an offer to all clients on an individual basis using a global formula.
If they were to offer clients 100% of their netted off portfolio value as ruled by Finkelstein, plus some portion of the difference between clients' collapse date claim and netted off claim they might settle the matter. If, for example only, they offered netted off value plus 50% of the difference, the cost to them would be roughly $300m+$170m. This is a big jump from what they are currently proposing but would almost certainly extinguish the vast majority of claims. Litigation funders, including private clients funding their own actions, would be very unlikely to proceed knowing that they had been offered what the court had already ruled was the valuation of their basic claim plus a damages component.

This would not achieve the global solution they are looking for by removing all clients' rights to litigate, but I think they are unlikely to achieve that aim in any case as it is a basic right to be able to take your compliant to court.

I think at this stage we need to find out what information the liquidator is obliged to provide to creditors, and request this information. Likewise ASIC in regards to their investigation.