URF DASS Legal Assignment, page-2

Hi Ricko5,

The question at hand is if the trustee of the SMSF has assignedthe right to claim against DASS (referred to as "cause of action") toa third party.

A detailedexplanation is provided in the letter "Update to DASS creditors dated 23 April2024" under a section headed "Investment Vehicles".

The link to the update is here:

https://pzigxpeausle7dfp001.blob.core.windows.net/ghs-def-au-private/daee3f7b-2dbf-43ae-a4c3-3b8812335f14/records/ae423efd-c3e6-419e-9644-0e3453538814/uploaded_files/e5653162ae41dc0ed42e223a622b7fa8.pdf?sp=r&sv=2015-04-05&sr=b&st=2024-09-06T12%3A34%3A41Z&se=2024-09-06T13%3A05%3A41Z&sig=jGExHItZBh8mB4u5gGzDFVutKbNOISWByKle4idaBT0%3D.

For your convenience however I have copied the relevant section directly below:
Investment Vehicles

A number of former clients of DASS have queried what their rights are as a creditor ofDASS in circumstances where the investment vehicle that held URF Equities (e.g., trust orself-managed superfund (SMSF)) has been dissolved or where the creditor is a deceasedestate. As outlined above, the Deed Administrators sought directions from the Court in thisrespect and a summary of the outcome is set out below:
• From a legal perspective, a claim against DASS for losses suffered as a result ofadvice received to invest in URF Equities is a “cause of action” and can be definedas “property”
• A former client that submits a claim against DASS must hold the “cause of action”in order to have a valid claim
• When a former client takes steps to wind-up or dissolve the investment vehicle thatheld URF Equities, this may compromise their claim against DASS