I can confirm that the admin and leading members of the facebook page for Courtenay House clients have taken the position that there is little to no evidence of Courtenay House being a Ponzi scheme (despite the liquidator's statements to the contrary, and there being over a 100 million dollar hole in funds) and that all pressure should be placed on ASIC and Grant Thornton (the liquidators) to give clients their money back. There is a strange idea taking hold among the lead members of the group that Tony has in fact hidden( or perhaps simply holding) tens of millions of dollars in overseas accounts and would love nothing more than to return all that money back to clients.
I am getting the feeling that it is a consensus that is being forced onto the group by a lot of the members who have been with Courtenay House for a number of years and thus have recovered their entire initial investment, plus made a quite sizable profit - typically the same class of members who are against even the notion of a legal clawback since it would mean that they would have to give up monthly transfers they received from other client's funds (which is what GT have essentially said Courtenay House's operation amounted to). Any serious argumentation or disputation to the contrary may lead to members getting warnings. Thus an environment is created wherein anyone who has a serious objection to the prevailing "Courtenay House was a legitimate forex managed account operation" will prefer to stay silent so as to retain access to the group (a positive attribute of the group is that it provides a lot of updates on the status and progress of GT's work). Granted, there may in fact be no malevolence on the part of these members and they are simply misled, however I am not sure which is worse. Then again it could also be a tactic by close associates of the directors to remove any potential legal action against the directors and focus it elsewhere. I would agree that pressure should be placed on Grant Thornton to ensure that they speed through the process of returning money to clients, but to say that it is too early to start putting legal pressure on the directors for them to do the same seems disingenuous.