Thanks, this is helpful to me too.
The one thing this lawyer said that I disagree with is that the customers do have a valid claim against OCIF. The liquidation though a receiver, and the press conference OCIF held, were clearly not in the best interest of customers. The Commissioner had two vastly superior alternatives to safeguard customers. The best one was to allow the sale to Qenta. The other was to allow a voluntary liquidation without a receiver and without holding an unnecessary, politically-motivated press conference about irrelevent allegations of money laundering and
tax evasion, that resulted in the Novo freeze.
I also think there is a valid claim against the receiver, but that could also be on OCIF for having appointed a receiver with zero banking experience to run the unnecessary liquidation of a bank.
This lawyer just likely doesn't have enough background facts or information to realize the validity of these claims. I can be helpful in that respect if anyone wants to go in that direction.