settlement calculator, page-16

The settlement that was negotiated by Slater & Gordon has been nothing short of an injustice for those shareholders who suffered a loss due to the alleged breaches by those company members for misleading and deceptive conduct and the possible breach of continuous disclosure laws during the period from 29 February 2008 to 1 December 2008.

A decent legal team would have negotiated a much higher settlement or taken the matter to court if they were 100% sure that these breaches in the law had in fact occurred during the period.

The fact that OZL was prepared to pay out 60 million for breaches they apparently would strongly defend and deny, leads me to believe that they did have a case to answer before the court, that?s only if the law firm representing the claimants had the GUTS and BACKBONE to proceed further or push for a higher settlement amount so that those affected could be adequately compensated.

I have used Slater & Gordon?s services in the past to represent me on a couple of matters. And now this is the last straw for me.

From this experience with Slater & Gordon in my mind, it has enforced the fact that this Law Firm will only do the minimum required to secure a result so they get paid rather than going the extra yard to get what you really deserve with regards to being compensated for being wronged.

The amounts these legal firms are paid and the fees they demand for a fair day?s work and a fair days pay are nothing short of exorbitant. They are the only people that receive adequate compensation as a result of a class action AND THEY WERE NOT EVEN WRONGED OR SUFFERED ANY FINANCIAL LOSS.

During the course of this class action Slater and Gordon has failed to update me and other members involved in this class action, with the same or accurate information during the entire course of this class action, so that we members of the class action could determine if the settlement and compensation amount is FAIR & REASONABLE as to what our entitlements will be in the wash up of it all, based on a percentage of the entire settlement amount when approved. (Now approved)

Prior to any settlement being approved, all members should have been informed of the exact amount they were going to receive out of the remaining 19 million and an election form to indicate whether or not they thought the compensation they would receive would be fair and reasonable to them. Yesterday?s judgment was an inadequate remedy.

The 7500 election forms could have then been returned to Slater & Gordon and produced to the court so that the Judge could determine based on share holder feedback, if the majority of shareholders were happy that the compensation amount offered was fair and reasonable. Not a compensation amount that was fair and reasonable to Slater & Gordon so they could deduct a 1.8 million dollar fee for their lack luster services.

The court approved the payments to be made to individuals who suffered a loss to be calculated using a complicated inflationary mathematical calculation that was derived from a particular period in 2008 when you purchased your shares.

For example the inflated price you paid for your shares compared to what the real price should have been at the time of the alleged deceit having occurred.

What annoys me the most here is that some people received a ready reckoner entitlement calculator via email so they could see what they might receive and others did not. So it is my belief that this class action run by Slater & Gordon has been poorly administered by them and the share holders involved in their class action were mal administered and not properly informed as to what their actual full entitlements would be.

We need to know this so we can make an informed decision that would either reject the settlement offer negotiated by Slater & Gordon or give us the opportunity to opt out of the class action prior to the final hearing.

For example, I would have opted out if I had known I was going to receive say $50 or nothing at all, in compensation for my total loss of well over $5K as a result of the deception.

If you are a member of the class action and you are still not sure on what your entitlement is to be out of the 19 or so million to be divided up, then how can you be sure that you have been fairly represented and have been fairly and reasonably compensated for your loss as a result of yesterdays judgment?

We received correspondence from Slater & Gordon that stated that only 80% of those who suffered a loss would receive anything between $500 & $5000 out of the settlement, I am not so sure this will be the case now? Another 20% of members will not be entitled to anything depending on what dates they purchased and or sold their shares during the period in question where the deception and misleading conduct is alleged to have occurred.

It is my view that many members of this class action will be bitterly disappointed when they receive a cheque in the mail for lets say $50 when their total loss due to the deception was say $5000, or a letter from Slater & Gordon stating that they have nil entitlement even after being mislead and investing in a financial product like OZL who?s true financial position at the time could not be determined by you as an investor.

In my view the inflationary calculation used to compensate those who suffered a loss, is an unfair calculation to be accepted by the court, as shareholders involved in the action suffered a greater total loss due to being mislead into buying a financial product and not being made clear about the true financial position of the product.

If we investors knew at the time that OZL ?The financial product? had debt liabilities that would ultimately lead the share price into collapse and financially disadvantage us, catching us off guard, we would never have invested in OZL at the time, and would not have suffered any loss if we knew their true financial position.

The class action could possibly have been driven in such a way so that shareholders could be compensated for their total loss or a punitive damages claim should have been pursued. i.e. Monetary compensation awarded to a financially injured party that goes beyond that which is necessary to compensate the individual for losses and that is intended to punish the wrongdoer.

With regard to opposition of the settlement, it was alarming that there were only a handful of people who opposed the settlement, those who took the time to write a submission. I feel that there would have been more written submissions submitted to the court, opposing the settlement, if members were better informed on the poor amounts of compensation they would or would not receive.

I say this because I know just from reading this forum that many people were not aware of the ready reckoner entitlements calculator seemingly distributed to selected members of the class action prior to the final settlement hearing.

I am left contemplating if this issue could have been pursued as a Tort case with regard to Directors negligence where we would need to prove the elements of duty, breach, causation, and damages during the period in 2008? Anyone with a legal background is welcome to provide feedback if you have any thoughts on this possibility?

The Judge based his decisions yesterday on 2 x separate QC?s who reviewed and wrote a review on the settlement amounts that had been negotiated between the parties the 2 x QC?s had concluded that the amounts offered were fair and resonable. However I am of the view that the QC?s did not have the opportunity to take into account all of the written submissions against the settlement prior to making their conclusions.

Not only did the QC reports have an influence on his decision to approve the settlement, but also the amounts funded by the Litigation Funders to fund the class action had some bearing as well.

In the wash up of it all, it boiled down to the cost of funding a court battle over approving the settlement, and the time it would take to achive an out come for either party if it were to go to trial.

It?s a sad day for our justice system when a Judge decides that the cost of obtaining justice takes precedent over the importance of obtaining justice for those who are wronged


If I can prove that the settlement was not fair and reasonable and that we have been mal administered or misinformed by Slater & Gordon, I will be seeking to investigate with the possibility of taking further action, on behalf of all members who feel they have not received a fair outcome.

This may include an appeal to the high court if this option is available.

These shady settlement deals are done through confidential written documents and meetings that we will never know about or have the opportunity to read. Deals done between legal firms and are by no means transparent, nor do they provide a fair outcome for those of us who have been wronged and financially disadvantaged.

I feel that settlements like what occurred yesterday only undermine the integrity of the market and the Corporations Act, and do not adequately punish the wrong doers or compensate those affected.

If you agree with my views above and you believe that you may have been mal administered or misinformed by Slater & Gordon during the time you were a member of their class action, please share your story with me. Email me at: [email protected] and if you are not happy with the outcome of the settlement.



Cheers