Agreed. Particularly in light of recent commentary from ASIC.No...

Agreed. Particularly in light of recent commentary from ASIC.

No clear account of the debts to various parties on collapse has been issued to client creditors, but it appears that this offer, if accepted, will get ANZ off with no loss or minimal loss and leave client creditors more than 60% out of pocket (on money realised as cash immediately after the collapse by financiers) and without rights to litigate.

None of the parties to the mediation seem willing to even approach the concept of a fair settlement, which to my mind would be the distribution which would have occurred if all creditors had shared the OP loss in ratio to the deb owed to them by OP on collapse. Dresdner is an exception as their security was valid. That figure is probably somewhere around 90% with no damages component.

I think OP needs to go before a court if there is to be any chance of a fair result for client creditors. Prefereably ASIC does their job and takes all key matters to court, but if not it will fall to FH and client creditors themselves.

The following should be tested:
1. OP running a non registered Managed Investment Scheme with ANZ/ML complicit
2. Non disclosure by ANZ of shareholdings
3. Last minute security taken by ANZ/ML
4. Last minute changes to the SLAs between ANZ and OP to allow them to return only the difference between sale value of siezed shares and their OP debt rather than market value of siezed shares at the time of seizure.
5. Increased "legal debt" of ANZ after the collapse of OP.
6. Potential involvement of financiers in misleading and deceptive conduct by OP.
7. Allegations that ANZ executives acted fraudulently by encouraging OP officers to release preferential security to ANZ at the detriment of other creditors through offering to release OP directors from personal guarantees.

For FH and ASIC to mention only that they believe a "certain transaction" may have been to the detriment of client creditors in the amount of $240m is again misleading. They are referring to point 4. above and fail to metion the other key points which were to the detriment of client creditors, such as the taking of last minute security, which is a key element.

I would like to think that all creditors will have a good chance to get a better return than the currently offered 35-40c if this goes before a court.

I intend to vote against the proposal.