Sir Robert Jones* writes about the planned class action against the ANZ Bank and its chances of success . . and the senior lawyer leading the charge.
Since I wrote about the RAM, mug “investors” looking to blame the ANZ for their stupidity, it’s come to light that the instigators of this action, such as Wellington lawyer John Strahl, are not acting in their professional capacity. Instead, unbelievably they’re acting as “victims” on their own behalf.
For God’s sake, John has half a century of commercial law practise at a top level under his belt. How could he and his fellow complainants have been so bloody dumb as to blindly buy into this genius investor (Ross) blarney, passed about by word of mouth?
They would surely have been aware that Ross had form, given his 1980s listed public company having gone belly-up. After that happened I received a telephone call from a Singapore based executive on behalf of a large international bank.
He told me his bank just wanted to clear the matter off their books and would accept virtually any sum I’d give them for Ross’s defunct company’s alleged $100 million Auckland commercial property portfolio, this a division they’d created late in the piece.
We popped up to have a look. Plainly Ross and his co-principal had no idea what they were doing for they’d been fitted into, from memory, about 10 developer dogs. One building on the list didn’t actually exist. We concluded getting involved could embroil us in unknown contingencies and stayed away.
Those plaintiffs blaming Ross’s bank the ANZ, for their stupidity are now trying to rally up other Ross victims support.
They should be mindful of this. Put your name to the action as a plaintiff and you will be obliged to testify. And do that and you will be subject to cross-examination. I know which side I’d like to be on if I was a barrister.
Did these aggrieved plaintiffs buy their homes without first thoroughly inspecting them, off-the-rack jackets without trying them on, cars without a test drive, and so on? Blindy “investing” with Ross on hearsay equated to religious superstition based solely on faith and now, as sadly is the New Zealand way, they seek to blame others for their personal negligence.
*Sir Robert Jones is an occasional LawFuel writer and writes on his own blog NoPunchesPulled.com
Bob,
Perhaps you are unaware but with regard to your piece about John Strahl he has no personal interest and is only involved as a trustee. Not only that, he wasn’t a trustee when the decision was made to invest with David Ross. Further, when he was appointed a trustee he looked at the investment with David Ross as one his early steps, insisted on meeting David Ross and as a result was one of the first, if not the very first, to contact the FMA.