- Was the Opes arrangement with clients legal and pass the "fair and reasonable" test in a court of law?
- Who owns the shares lodged with Opes? If title was passed from the client to Opes then surely that must warrant a CGT event. Why aren't Opes required to issue significant shareholder statements? If title wasn't passed then why I am still getting dividends and allowed to vote at meetings. If the shares were lent then it is illegal for Opes to sell them unless it's to cover a margin call
- If clients lodged shares as part of a supperannuation fund then isn't the passing of title of these shares illegal?
- Under ''preferential payments'' laws a charge can be rendered void if it has been made within six months of receivers being appointed. ANZ took the charge over the Opes assets (ie client portfolios) only just before Easter. Why aren't ANZ being treated as another unsecured creditor?
- Why was Tricom allowed to cross a number of large share blocks from Opes just before all Opes accounts were frozen. With Tricom being another major ANZ client is it possible they were given the tip off to get out?
- How was a single client of Opes allowed to run up such a debt that it destroyed the company? Where were the Opes and ANZ risk managers?
- Why were investors not advised that they were exposed to other clients risks and in fact would end up paying for their losses?
- How did ASIC and the ASX let such a scheme come into operation?
- Is it true that some ANZ managers in the margin lending department had trading accounts with Opes?
- Why did Opes Prime issue a statement some two weeks before the collapse saying that everything was great?
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Questions that need answering
We need a better understanding of or someone to look into the following issues:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
You missed the point that there were two different Financial Services Guides. One dated 2005 and one dated Feb 2008, just before the collapse. The former does not have the 'credit risk' clause that appears in the latter. the 'credit risk' clause makes clients unsecured creditors in the event of OP rolling over. Clients who signed up under the 2005 FSG, were never formallly advised of the 2008 version, when it was published.
so what is the difference in status if you signed the 2005 one or the 2008 one ?
We need to get a legal opinion on this as I also signed the 2005 FSG. The thing is that is looks like the ANZ are going to steamrool through and sell ALL assets. But that doesn't mean we can't recoup our funds down the track. If it turns out the contracts didn't allow for the ANZ to do what it is doing they will have to pay back the money
One of my contacts was accidently sent a copy of the Opes Prime margin book. He has retained a copy. On it, there was large account which has been on margin call from July 2007 - 8 months ago. The LVR on the account was 95% and the margin call was for over $10 million. Loan about $110 million against collateral of about $100. I cannot believe that ANZ were not aware of this. Why did not ANZ make OP do something about it then?
Absolute disgrace. ANZ would have been getting regular portfolio updates so as they could do their own margin calls on Opes and must have known about the situation you have decribed. Would it be possible to get a copy of the margin book sent to Slater and Gordon?
A copy of loan book is being retained as evidence when needed to prove ANZ knew what was going on for months on several problem accounts, and did nothing about it.
Also, a quote from SMH article 2 April re beneficial ownership of stock:
Just two months before it collapsed, Opes Prime's chief operating officer, Dean Boyle, was painting a rosy picture of the company's financial health and the security of clients' loans.
Mr Boyle told a client, Jason Dixon of CMG Capital, that his firm would not lose the full value of its shares it managed if Opes was to go broke.
He would be liable only for the gap between what his stock was sold for and what he owed Opes.
"The risk associated with this structure is if Opes Prime was to become insolvent then the clients would become unsecured creditors of Opes Prime for the difference between the market value of their securities and the amount they have borrowed from us," Mr Boyle said in an email in late January.
But Mr Dixon and hundreds of other sophisticated investors now face losing the full value of their shares.
In June 2006 Mr Boyle reassured Mark Tassone, also of CMG, that his loans were safe with Opes because clients retained beneficial ownership of their shares at all times and could reel them in at any time.
word is trader dealer is being sold as a going concern this friday.
Post a Comment