I read the criteria to be "Majority in number (ie. > 50%, not...

I read the criteria to be "Majority in number (ie. > 50%, not 75% of clients), at least 75% in value, and court approval".

I agree that it may end up that we are just talking about the size of the pool, and then we will have the following equation

Client Dividend = (Proof of Debt / Pool Size) x $235M

So, the lower the Pool Size, the higher the dividend. The pool could be $300M if damages claims are dissallowed, or $640m if all claims are allowed.

What remains to be seen is how FH explain to the judge that they would like to increase the pool size by including damages.

To allow damages there has to be a reason, and I would have thought this may need to be explored a bit further before a judge can allow it.

Depending on what happens next, and if the deal falls over, these reasons and justifications can be brought against ANZ and ML by whomever feels like it.

Dangerous ground here. If I were ANZ I would have offered a bit more.