worried about what ?--and further more, page-54

Bendigo,
Good post as you have put up more facts. Understandably, many of the MIS investors view points are influenced by their emotion in being caught up in the debacle.

As you have rightly pointed out, some of the loans had been done by Adelaide Bank at the time when the MIS schemes were viable and there were no question of improprietary behaviour.

At some point in time as the MIS was heading towards disaster, there come the question of whether GFS/GPT had fulfilled their duty of disclosure to investors.

In the ANZ debacle, OPES was openly promoting ANZ as the financier and the court had found that ANZ ought to be aware of what OPES was doing.

Many of the investors were misled by the use of the ANZ logo by OPES to imply the scheme had ANZ endorsement.


I think from the facts I gleaned from the postings, the focus is on the GFS/GTP relationship with the investors. At what point in time (if any) has GFS/GTP failed in their duty of disclosure to investors.
IF the court finds there is a failure by GFS/GTP then the loan agreement may not be enforceable in the hands of GFS who had later onsell it onto Adelaide Bank.

This is one very messy and complicated debacle and the only people to come out as the winner is the legal proffession!