# BCS - BrisConnections Unit Trusts



## quinn123 (30 November 2008)

I saw this the other day:

*Many small time investors in the recently floated company Brisconnections could face financial ruin after discovering the shares they purchased are to be paid for over three instalments. Many investors bought into the company when the share price plummeted from $3 to just a mere tenth of a cent believing they were snapping up a bargain. Now, investors face bills running into millions of dollars when the next dollar per share payment is due in April, a liability they claim was never spelled out to them.*

I'm new to shares and don't quite understand this "dollar per share payment"?  Is it becasue the company was recently floated?  

My main concern is I plan to invest in shares and wasn't aware of these types of risks.  I thought the only risks involved were the share price decreasing and the possibility of the company going into liquidation.  

E.g. If I was to invest in some ordanary shares in BHP is there any contract for the shareholder relating to those particular shares?  And if there is how would you find that information.

Thanks


----------



## apra143 (30 November 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

It's a case of Trusts or Stapled Units VS Fully Paid Ordinary

So they bought into BCSCA - BRISCONNECTION TRUST CTG
Whereas, something like BHP - BHP BILLITON LIMITED FPO

I think if you stick to the FPO (fully paid ordinary) shares, you should be fine, however, will let others with more experience answer this one.


----------



## quinn123 (30 November 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Oh ok, makes sense.

Its a worry that some of the people investing in that company were not aware of this...

I have another question .  Is there a cheap way to average down?  Or do you just have to accept the brokerage fee every time you trade?  
I will be using commsec to do my online trading. 

Thanks for quick reply.


----------



## Sunder (30 November 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

There was another thread about this I started recently. 

The long and the short of it was that 5 letter shares always have money owing on them, so just be careful buying anything with 5 letters?


----------



## apra143 (1 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Found some other thread about it too:
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13063


----------



## korrupt_1 (1 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Truly a nightmare for those that weren't aware of the $1/share installments.

Brisconnect CEO claims that it fully disclosed the installments in the PDS, their website, etc and everyone 'should' have been fully informed.

I guess the problem is that how do you inform traders about the installments after the stock is trading on the ASX? How do you inform them BEFORE they purchase?

It would have been easy to purchase 500,000 shares at 0.1c for $500... but then u realise that you're up for at $0.5M when the installment comes.... scary thought!


----------



## SoBadAtTrading (1 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> There was another thread about this I started recently.
> 
> The long and the short of it was that 5 letter shares always have money owing on them, so just be careful buying anything with 5 letters?




Actually, some 5 letter shares can be Preference shares which rank ahead of common shares in the case where the company goes down. For example, SUNPB.


----------



## Prospector (1 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Options are also five letter codes; with options if things go pear shaped, you just let them lapse; in the case of instalments, you either have to sell them (if you can!) or you are fully liable to pay them out, you cannot let them lapse.


----------



## sails (1 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> Options are also five letter codes; with options if things go pear shaped, you just let them lapse; in the case of instalments, you either have to sell them (if you can!) or you are fully liable to pay them out, you cannot let them lapse.




However, if wanting to trade options or warrants, you have to get special trading approvals with your broker stating that you have at least read the relevant ASX booklets which goes through all the different types of warrants & options available and explains any obligations.

I don't see why the the ASX doesn't also prevent traders/investors from trading these types of instalment products and require potential purchasers to get special approval from their brokers where they are pointed to the relevant material explaining the risks before doing a few easy mouse clicks and potentially ruining the rest of their lives.

And this type of product appears to be far more risky than most standard options and warrants.

The sad part is that, because BCSCA have been so cheap, those with small trading accounts trying to get ahead are attracted to these low priced products - and they are the ones who can least afford a mistake of this magnitude.


----------



## Prospector (1 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> However, if wanting to trade options or warrants, you have to get special trading approvals with your broker stating that you have at least read the relevant ASX booklets which goes through all the different types of warrants & options available and explains any obligations..




Nope, when I bought FMSOA I did nothing different to any other share trade.  Through online trading, which is where most people trade shares these days.  One of the pitfalls I guess.


----------



## sails (1 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> Nope, when I bought FMSOA I did nothing different to any other share trade.  Through online trading, which is where most people trade shares these days.  One of the pitfalls I guess.




Were they company options?  If so, they are handled differently to Exchange Traded Options.  It is the ETOs where you have to jump through a few hoops before you can get approval to trade.


----------



## mazzatelli1000 (1 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Just a quick question

Will this involve the holders having to get rid of all their personal assets to try and meet these legal obligations?


----------



## cuttlefish (1 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



mazzatelli1000 said:


> Just a quick question
> 
> Will this involve the holders having to get rid of all their personal assets to try and meet these legal obligations?





If they are the registered holders of the warrants when the installment falls due, then as I understand it they are legally obliged to pay the installment.

So by not paying they would have a legally enforceable debt and can be pursued through the courts for the full amount.  If they fail to pay I assume the next step is asset seizures and bankruptcy.   

Now, given that buying just $500 worth of these at the recent .001 price effectively creates a $500,000 obligation when the first installment is due, its pretty likely that the majority of people that purchased these recently would face extreme financial hardship under that scenario.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (1 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



mazzatelli1000 said:


> Just a quick question
> 
> Will this involve the holders having to get rid of all their personal assets to try and meet these legal obligations?




Well Mazza think of it this way...

The underwriters are Macquarie Bank and Deutche Bank.  Aren't those two companies really well known for their generous and forgiving natures?

OK jokes aside I saw it stated somewhere that the underwriters will pursue payment from shareholders.


----------



## mazzatelli1000 (1 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> If they are the registered holders of the warrants when the installment falls due, then as I understand it they are legally obliged to pay the installment.
> 
> So by not paying they would have a legally enforceable debt and can be pursued through the courts for the full amount.  If they fail to pay I assume the next step is asset seizures and bankruptcy.
> 
> Now, given that buying just $500 worth of these at the recent .001 price effectively creates a $500,000 obligation when the first installment is due, its pretty likely that the majority of people that purchased these recently would face extreme financial hardship under that scenario.




Geez, that is extraordinary !!!
Well i guess seizing retail investors money is better than having to fork out their own (Macquarie)


----------



## mazzatelli1000 (1 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sir Osisofliver said:


> Well Mazza think of it this way...
> 
> The underwriters are Macquarie Bank and Deutche Bank.  Aren't those two companies really well known for their generous and forgiving natures?
> 
> OK jokes aside I saw it stated somewhere that the underwriters will pursue payment from shareholders.




Yes well logically one would assume if it is legally binding then the personal assets will come under attack

But as I have seen discussion from others about whether ASX and ASA will step in, I was wondering if any new developments will abstain the retail holders from these instalments.

As you and cuttlefish suggest, they aren't so lucky......


----------



## Sunburnt Land (1 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Definitely one harsh lesson for those willing to gamble on the sharemarket in the pursuit of a quick buck.


----------



## Sunder (1 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Simple answer is this:

Set up a $2 shelf company. Process costs about $1000

Do an off market transfer of shares to that company.

The day the installment comes due, declare the company as insolvent and unable to service its debt. 

As its director, you did your due diligence to declare as soon as it was known that the company could not meet its obligations, and liability is limited to the original $2.

Heck, you can even get people to pay you to take the shares off their hands, and draw a directors fee before the installments are due 

Somehow, I doubt people would get away with this, but I'd say there'd be some catch-all fraud law, instead of a specific law that prevents them doing this.


----------



## drsmith (7 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

If the share code contains more than three letters it's a good idea for the investor to investigate what the extra letters represent prior to purchase. Information on the partly paid nature of these securities is available on the ASX's website.

That being said I'm left to wonder how trading can be allowed to continue in these securities given that the market can't actually determine a value for them in their present form.

Perhaps the answer is to allow them to trade at a negative value relative to the current instalment level. That though would require some big flashing warnings on broker sites prior to purchase.


----------



## alphaman (7 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



korrupt_1 said:


> Brisconnect CEO claims that it fully disclosed the installments in the PDS, their website, etc and everyone 'should' have been fully informed.



BCS Chairman Rowe actually misled the public. I remember within the first few days of listing, when BCSCA was trading below 50c, Rowe told AFR that BCS was great value because dividend yield had went up from 14% to 28%. Clearly, the denominator he used was $1, not $3. Was he really that dumb or just being irresponsible?

And this guy is a director of ASX, as well as chairman of Queensland Investment Corporation, an AM too. Talking about irony.


----------



## shaunQ (7 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



alphaman said:


> And this guy is a director of ASX, as well as chairman of Queensland Investment Corporation, an AM too. Talking about irony.




No, talk about a conflict of interest.


----------



## Macquack (7 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Those theiving bastards at Macquarie pocketed $110 million out of the float of this train wreck.

Rocket 12, go straight to the top and "literally" put a rocket up Nicholas Moore.


----------



## cutz (7 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

A fascinating aspect of this debacle is the fact that Macquarie offloaded their warrants recently as pointed out in this article http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2425392.htm which probably coincided with the massive volume in mid November, and what’s with the d***head that purchased 2 million shares for his 82 year old mum, topping up her super fund maybe???


----------



## cuttlefish (8 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I posted a response in this thread last night ... I'm sure I submitted it and saw it on the thread after submitting.  Not sure what happened to it.

When I'm less busy I guess I'll try to post it again.


----------



## Joe Blow (8 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> I posted a response in this thread last night ... I'm sure I submitted it and saw it on the thread after submitting.  Not sure what happened to it.
> 
> When I'm less busy I guess I'll try to post it again.




An ASF member requested that, on legal advice, a post be deleted and, as a consequence, all posts that quoted it also had to be deleted.

My apologies for the inconvenience.


----------



## cuttlefish (8 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Thanks for the explanation Joe.


----------



## shaunQ (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Well if you were to write and complain about this to someone - who would it be ASIC? The ASX? Your local member? The shareholders association? 

I think someone should be taking this on.


----------



## rocket12 (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



shaunQ said:


> Well if you were to write and complain about this to someone - who would it be ASIC? The ASX? Your local member? The shareholders association?
> 
> I think someone should be taking this on.




Brisconnections are very adament they have a binding contract that cant be broken...  I have put in a dispute with the financial ombudsmen, and Stuart Wilson from the shareholders association is very good and doing everything he can.


----------



## James Austin (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

hello rocket,

sorry that you are in this situation, it sounds very unpleasant.

really, the best hope of getting out of this mess is to rally all others who have been "surprised" by their investment in this stock. band together and take action together. 

there is less chance of success, i think, as an individual, because i think u will find the onus is on you to fully inform yourself when u enter the market place -- the additional letters might be the only legal requirement at pnt of sale.

however, if there are enough of you, unified as a group, the powers that be, may decide that the additional letters are not a satisfactory means of informing the buyer.

one question, how are you coping personally regarding this mess?

james


----------



## YELNATS (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I use netwealth Share Trading as my on-line broker and their Security Details page for BCSCA indicates:

Quote

Issuer Name BRISCONNECTIONS UNIT TRUSTS  
Security Description STAPLED SECURITY PAID TO $1.00, $2.00 UNPAID

Unquote

I'm a bit surprised that CommSec doesn't have this indication somewhere on their website.

PS. Maybe you have some sort of a case against CommSec for not providing all relevant information to their clients. After all, what are you paying brokerage to them for?


----------



## shaunQ (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



> the best hope of getting out of this mess is to rally all others who have been "surprised" by their investment in this stock. band together and take action together.




I agree, and that was what I meant Rocket about who to complain to. Really it effects everyone as it is about disclosure. Even people not directly hurt by this can complain about it.

I am a commsec customer, (worth very little). How many people on this site use commsec? I'm not saying they're at fault, but if every member wrote to the ASX, or ASIC, or some one, somewhere - at the very least next time they'll be forced to make you sign something or actively acknowledge the implications of your transaction.

Rocket - have you thought about going to Today Tonight or A current affair - maybe publicity would help.


----------



## rocket12 (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



James Austin said:


> hello rocket,
> 
> sorry that you are in this situation, it sounds very unpleasant.
> 
> ...




There's 300 or so people trying to sell their shares, so thats at least 300 that are in the same boat.  Maybe Stuart from the ASA is going to somehow get everyone together as I was thinking the same thing that we all need to fight this together.  

Personally, I am still very anxious as there are no buyers, and whilst I am in the queue to sell them I hope the only people that take them off me are Macquarie bank.  Thanks for asking..


----------



## Nyden (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I guess my opinion has somewhat changed on this matter - and I now find it quite disturbing that an order of just a few dollars could cost someone thousands in debt.

I hope you're fairing well Rocket, as this sounds like an absolutely terrible position to be in. 4 million in debt for a $2000 order? That is absurdly insane, and the fact that the company is standing by its rights and contract is even more crazy! Do they *honestly* expect an average-joe with a paltry $2000 in their hot-pockets to pay up 4 million?

I will say, that I (unfortunately) believe the media to be your only option. Getting the sheep on your side will be to your benefit - as it is a scary thought that a life can be thrown into economic ruin for the cost of a shirt


----------



## barney (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Brisconnections are very adament they have a binding contract that cant be broken...  I have put in a dispute with the financial ombudsmen, and Stuart Wilson from the shareholders association is very good and doing everything he can.





My sympathies to those affected by this ... very depressing situation.

Legally they do have a legit contract, because the conditions are stated in their PDS, however, this is not a normal situation anymore.

Stock owners cannot sell/ no buyers ... Its not a "real" market

MacQuarie selling off all their shares could amount to insider trading considering the current circumstances.

Personally, I can't imagine the company spending the time and money to persue a zillion small shareholders knowing full well that they will only get a very low % of their cash owed anyway, particularly since the issue is underwritten by Mac Bank etc 

I think the Company WILL send out letters of demand to satisfy their contractual obligation, but if I were a S/Holder, I'd sit tight (although I would prefer not to have any cash in the bank until the nonsense is cleared up just in case 

I wonder if its legal to Cross trade the shares into a Company Account as mentioned in one of the earlier deleted posts?   Worth getting some advice on methinks.

The whole fiasco has exposed a serious glitch in the system ...... There should be a provision with share ownership, that the share holder can simply "give" their shares back to the company when no trade is available.


----------



## rocket12 (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



YELNATS said:


> I use netwealth Share Trading as my on-line broker and their Security Details page for BCSCA indicates:
> 
> Quote
> 
> ...




If that info is on one of the main research pages then that's good stuff... 

The only place I could find any info was in one of the hundreds of announcements on these pages below.  I have circled in red where it's mentioned but as has been pointed out to me later it's also mentioned near the top of this particular announcement.  I admit that I didn't go through all the announcements, and whilst I did go to the Brisconnections website and browse what the are up to on the investor page, I didn't click on the product disclosure statement.

The bottom line is that as the ASA have mentioned, this info should be on the buy page in flashing lights.


----------



## rocket12 (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

This is an interesting article 
http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/content/2007/s2420909.htm

Interesting that Mr Rowe from Brisconnections says below with regards to the online brokers that the ticket (I assume he is talking about the buy page) does have a notation about the liability, but as you can see by the screencaps in my first post thats not the case!!

ALAN KOHLER: But you're a director of the ASX. Does the ASX have a role to play in informing people who are buying BrisConnections shares about the instalments?

TREVOR ROWE: The ASX's normal process is about 30 to 40 days before calls are due, they write to shareholders reminding them.

ALAN KOHLER: Before they buy the shares now. Is there a better way for them now?

TREVOR ROWE: Well brokers and financial advisers should be aware of these liabilities that their clients are taking on and they should be advising any buyers of a stock that they have this on call liability.

ALAN KOHLER: Except a lot of trading is on Commsec and e-trade.

TREVOR ROWE: And that's part of the problem.

ALAN KOHLER: And nobody's advising anybody.

TREVOR ROWE: But the ticket does have a notation to it that says there is an on call liability. I can't guarantee that these people, when they buy this stuff, are either being properly informed or they're informed themselves


----------



## barney (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I could be wrong, but I think you'll find that Comsec have no responsibility in this instance.  They are just the middle man offering a service between the two clients.

I have a "fledgling" legal eagle in the family ... I'll ask their opinion tonight.


----------



## rocket12 (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



barney said:


> I could be wrong, but I think you'll find that Comsec have no responsibility in this instance.  They are just the middle man offering a service between the two clients.
> 
> I have a "fledgling" legal eagle in the family ... I'll ask their opinion tonight.




I think you are correct, they have stated that have no responsibility.  From what I have been hearing I am stitched up completely from all angles.  I think we can all acknowledge that this is just plain wrong, but unfortunately I am not in the right...  Go figure....


----------



## cuttlefish (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Well now that Rocket's post is back I guess I can restate my view expressed in the earlier post that was removed.

To put it simply, in my view the problem is not with the brokers but with the product.  The product became riskier as the price fell and at some point (in my opinion) it should have been deemed to risky to remain available to non-sophisticated retail investors (as opposed to the class of investor that have succesfully met pre-requisite criteria to obtain sophisticated investor status from ASIC).

To me it is irresponsible to offer a product to non-sophisticated retail investors that enables them to incur up to $1,000,000 debt (i.e. both instalments) for a $500 outlay,  without requiring them to explicitly acknowledge that they understand the risk involved in the investment. 

As I see it the online brokers are non-advice brokers and are simply there to facilitate investment in products that are made available by the ASX.  

The best solution would have been to suspend trading in the stock once the price fell to a certain point and the risks began to increase exponentially.

I'm not a lawyer but I would have thought that somewhere there would be investor/consumer protection legislation designed to prevent these sorts of situations occurring that might be able to be used to tackle this.

Rocket it is good to see you are taking a positive approach to a difficult situation.  I certainly hope that the whole mess gets sorted out for you.


----------



## James Austin (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> I think you are correct, they have stated that have no responsibility.  From what I have been hearing I am stitched up completely from all angles.  I think we can all acknowledge that this is just plain wrong, but unfortunately I am not in the right...  Go figure....




rocket, i dont know your financial situation, but i'd assume its not in BrisC's/MacBs interest to take a heap of little people to court, people who have no way of paying. once everyone has been processed and declared bankrupt they wont even cover legal fees. so maybe . . . in the end court is unlikely. although, none of this helps at the moment, does it!


----------



## lormarg (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Slater and Gordon are on to it.


----------



## Prospector (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Oh Rocket I am so sorry for this - could you contact IMF - they are a 'no win no pay' company that is currently suing MFS for lack of disclosure - I just posted a query about them myself in the Chat section.

You know, the ease of online trading and apparent lack of warning about this trade is truly scary - I have told my sons and Husband about what is happening to people on this forum and everyone is gobsmacked.  But hubby said, as did James Austin above, that it really isnt in anyone's best interest to take people to court who have no chance of paying out.

I am going to see if I can buy 1 share to see what info NAB gives.

I think the best thing to happen is for a Slater and Gordon to take it to the Court and they may decide to 'hold' future settlements pending a decision.
I really hope that this all works out for you.


----------



## barney (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



James Austin said:


> rocket, i dont know your financial situation, but i'd assume its not in BrisC's/MacBs interest to take a heap of little people to court, people who have no way of paying. once everyone has been processed and declared bankrupt they wont even cover legal fees. so maybe . . . in the end court is unlikely. although, none of this helps at the moment, does it!




Exactly JA,  

As I said in my previous post, if it were me in this position, I'd move my available cash to somewhere "out of the way", then sit tight and let the Big Boys flex their muscles.  I think MAC Bank will end up footing most of the bill as underwriters ......

Trouble is even if you and others get out in the end, the stress in the short/medium term can take its toll ...... 

Someone tried to sue me once for 3/4 of a million bucks for something I had nothing to do with ..... In hindsight, I shouldn't have hired a lawyer till I got a court date ............. needless to say, it never got to court, but meanwhile the solicitors bled almost 10 grand out of my families savings  (a lot of photocopying fees LOL .......... )  

There are places to get advice on this sort of stuff, but you don't need to pay some LA Law wannabe $450 / hour !!

So my point is Rocket ... sit tight ... try and stay calm ... Injustices have a way of working themselves out ................


----------



## skc (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



James Austin said:


> rocket, i dont know your financial situation, but i'd assume its not in BrisC's/MacBs interest to take a heap of little people to court, people who have no way of paying. once everyone has been processed and declared bankrupt they wont even cover legal fees. so maybe . . . in the end court is unlikely. although, none of this helps at the moment, does it!




While this seems sensible the difficulty arises because there are shareholders out there who can afford the installment payments... they could be wealthy individuals, institutional holders or small investors who just had a small holding. Where do you draw the line on who you will / will not pursue? Will Macq be so generous in chaning the underwriting agreement (which stipulates that BrisConnection has to chase down those liable)? This means many holders can get a free put (i.e. they are able to "sell" the fully paid BrisConnection shares at $2 each, when their real worth is a lot less than that).

This is such a can of worms. If I am a holder I would read the fine print of the PDS / Service agreement of the broker which you bought the securities through and see whether they have any duty to inform. I would also definitely seek legal advice (on both process and legality) of setting up transferring BCSCA to a shell trust/company (see earlier post)... This is more proactive than waiting for the goodwill of BCS / MQG.


----------



## rocket12 (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



skc said:


> While this seems sensible the difficulty arises because there are shareholders out there who can afford the installment payments... they could be wealthy individuals, institutional holders or small investors who just had a small holding. Where do you draw the line on who you will / will not pursue? Will Macq be so generous in chaning the underwriting agreement (which stipulates that BrisConnection has to chase down those liable)? This means many holders can get a free put (i.e. they are able to "sell" the fully paid BrisConnection shares at $2 each, when their real worth is a lot less than that).
> 
> This is such a can of worms. If I am a holder I would read the fine print of the PDS / Service agreement of the broker which you bought the securities through and see whether they have any duty to inform. I would also definitely seek legal advice (on both process and legality) of setting up transferring BCSCA to a shell trust/company (see earlier post)... This is more proactive than waiting for the goodwill of BCS / MQG.




Yes I think my first job is to see a lawyer who can protect my assets (I don't have many!!)  as well as seeing if I can transfer the shares somehow. Whilst I agree with another recent poster that these sort of injustices have a tendency to work out, it does seem like they are going to play hardball.  So the main thing shareholders can do is make things as hard as possible for them to get anything....

Anyone know of lawyers that specialize in that sort of situation??


----------



## barney (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Just as a side note to all this, which is also a bit scary .............. Brisconn. originally mentioned in their PDS that each share will be paid a form of divi around 15% (1st installment period) and 8% (2nd I)

Thats all good ..... but they go on to say in section 6 ish that they don't guarantee the divi .............. Instead, you may be "compensated" with additional shares .......... and here's the bad news .... those additional shares will also be subject to the future installment requirements  

(Please check that out for yourselves in case I've misunderstood it) 

The whole thing is a mess, but I still think the average punter will be ok.  Actually, it wouldn't surprise to see the whole Co. to go belly up because of whats happened .............. Then they will  fight with MacB over the cash .

Just try and move your cash/assets in to a safe haven in the mean time (legally of course) so they can't get at it easily.


----------



## barney (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Yes I think my first job is to see a lawyer who can protect my assets (I don't have many!!)  as well as seeing if I can transfer the shares somehow. Whilst I agree with another recent poster that these sort of injustices have a tendency to work out, it does seem like they are going to play hardball.  So the main thing shareholders can do is make things as hard as possible for them to get anything....
> 
> Anyone know of lawyers that specialize in that sort of situation??




Hi Rocket, and sorry for your situation.

Regarding my comments on Lawyers, I should clarify .....  I agree getting some good advice is important atm, but I would not sign any thing with regard to them fighting your case for you at this point in time. Way too early for that. 

If it is legal to XT your shares to a shelf Co., that would be a priority for sure ... you need to do whatever it takes to protect the lively-hood of your family. 

Re the "hardball" ........... The Company has to "appear" to play hardball with the shareholders such as yourself, to satisfy the Underwriter that they have taken all steps available to them to recoup monies BEFORE they can get any money out of the Underwriter themselves. ........ otherwise MacB will have a case not to pay up....... so this is all normal carry on from a legal pov.

I think the there will be a lot of water under the bridge before this gets settled, so hang in.


----------



## rocket12 (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



barney said:


> Hi Rocket, and sorry for your situation.
> 
> Regarding my comments on Lawyers, I should clarify .....  I agree getting some good advice is important atm, but I would not sign any thing with regard to them fighting your case for you at this point in time. Way too early for that.
> 
> ...




I agree, I actually feel sorry for  Trevor Rowe from Brisconnections as I do realize he has to be seen to try and get this money from us.  A pretty crappy situation to be put in. I don't think he would be getting a lot of joy out of the debt collector comments, but it's what he's gotta say!!


----------



## barney (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> I agree, I actually feel sorry for  Trevor Rowe from Brisconnections as I do realize he has to be seen to try and get this money from us.  A pretty crappy situation to be put in. I don't think he would be getting a lot of joy out of the debt collector comments, but it's what he's gotta say!!





M8,  If you have the ability to feel sorry for Trevor Rowe while you are in the middle of dealing with this, then I take my hat off to you .............. 

That being the case, I think you will deal with the whole scenario well, whatever the outcome.  

Life has a funny way of putting us in situations that are a downright pain in the proverbial .............. How you deal with the situation is the real measure of the person ............. so as I said .... my hat is off. 

Cheers and good luck to you and your family.


----------



## cuttlefish (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Well I went onto the ASX site with the mindset of a newcomer to the stock market.  I went into the link for shares and under there is a "getting started in shares" PDF document.  I opened the document and read through it.  It has a section on warrants.  Below is the excerpt from that booklet.  

I have bolded the relevant part and underlined a key word that is in that document.  My understanding of installment warrants was always that the installment payments were optional.  This booklet as far as I can see gives the same impression.  If this is what beginners to the share market read it is easy to see how they could have mistakenly been under the impression that the payments were optional.

*Warrants*
_A warrant is a financial instrument issued by
banks and other institutions and traded on ASX.
Warrants provide investors an alternative way to
gain exposure to a variety of underlying assets,
such as shares, to achieve a desired result.
There are different types of warrants that
suit investment and/or trading purposes.
Warrants with an investment purpose, such
as instalments, are generally longer-dated,
tend to be less frequently traded and have a
lower risk/return profile while warrants with a
trading purpose, such as trading warrants are
shorter-dated, traded frequently and have
a higher risk/return profile.
*You can use instalments to gain leveraged
exposure to shares, baskets of shares, or
listed managed investments such as exchange
traded funds (ETFs) by making a part payment
upfront and delaying an optional final payment
until a later date. *This allows you to buy
shares for part of the current share price
while receiving the benefits of potential capital
growth, dividends and franking credits.
Reasons to invest include leverage,
diversification, generating an enhanced
dividend income and extracting cash from a
share-holding without triggering a capital gains
tax. They are also one of the few leveraged
investments eligible for Self Managed Super
Funds (SMSF)._


----------



## cuttlefish (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I then went into the Warrants section of the ASX web site and clicked on the "What are warrants" link.  Under there is a link to "types of warrants".  I followed this link.  Under there is a section that says 'instalments'.  I clicked on it.   Below is the second paragraph from under there.  Note that word 'optional' is bolded on the actual ASX web site.


_Instalments allow you to gain exposure to shares (and other securities) by making a part payment upfront and delaying an *optional* final payment until a later date. This allows you to buy shares for a fraction of the current share price while receiving the benefits of capital growth, dividends and franking credits. _

Here is the link to the page:
http://www.asx.com.au/products/warrants/how/instalments.htm


----------



## rocket12 (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



barney said:


> M8,  If you have the ability to feel sorry for Trevor Rowe while you are in the middle of dealing with this, then I take my hat off to you ..............
> 
> That being the case, I think you will deal with the whole scenario well, whatever the outcome.
> 
> ...




Some of the things he has said publicly have flat out annoyed me.  Saying investors should seek financial advice every time they buy shares.  Sorry but there would be a 20 year waiting list to see a financial advisor if every sale on the ASX needed financial advice!!  and I'm sure the ASX would love to hear that kind of talk, peeps would stay away from the market in droves.

Saying that the code BCSCA indicates that its a contributing share, and that in itself is enough to inform the market.  Sorry but a pretty large percentage of retail investors dont know that.  Knowing very well that millions of retail investors are in the market

Saying that contributing shares are very common.  Sorry but I could only count 3 out of the thousands of shares making up the all industrials (brisconnections, Multiplex prime, and Westpac office trusts) 

However I would guess that he hopes his underwriters step in and fix this mess, so were both in the same boat in that regard...

Ps thanks to you and everyone else for all the positive input and thoughts, I will pop back in the future and see how things are going here, looks like a great site...


----------



## rocket12 (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> I then went into the Warrants section of the ASX web site and clicked on the "What are warrants" link.  Under there is a link to "types of warrants".  I followed this link.  Under there is a section that says 'instalments'.  I clicked on it.   Below is the second paragraph from under there.  Note that word 'optional' is bolded on the actual ASX web site.
> 
> 
> _Instalments allow you to gain exposure to shares (and other securities) by making a part payment upfront and delaying an *optional* final payment until a later date. This allows you to buy shares for a fraction of the current share price while receiving the benefits of capital growth, dividends and franking credits. _
> ...




hehe, I'm back already!!.....I searched the ASX website for hours and found nothing on contributing shares codes, this is the closest I got http://www.asx.com.au/products/warrants/how/codes.htm

I think this info you have found is what warrants usually are (I wouldn't know really) but contributing shares where the fourth letter of a five letter code is "C" indicates it as such.

They need something like this page http://www.trading-plan.com/basics_asx_codes.html where it explains it clearly.


----------



## rocket12 (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

This is normall what happens when a warrant type of share is due.
http://www.goldstarnl.com.au/pdf/Call Notice ASX - Final.pdf

I wish Brisconnections fell into this more common category.....

Upon receipt of the formal call notice, there are two courses of action available to you:
1. Pay $0.099 per contributing share. In this event you will be issued with one fully paid ordinary
share for each contributing share you have elected to pay up in full. These ordinary shares
will be tradable on the ASX; or
2. Do nothing. If you do nothing and the call remains unpaid for a period of 14 days, your
contributing shares will be forfeited. The forfeited contributing shares will be auctioned
under a formal process pursuant to the ASX Listing Rules and the Corporations Act. If the
contributing shares subject to the auction are sold then the proceeds up to $0.099 will be
paid to the Company, and any proceeds in excess of $0.099 will be for the account of the
contributing shareholder whose contributing shares were forfeited.
Contributing shareholders are urged to promptly pay the sum of $0.099 per contributing share to
avoid their contributing shares being automatically forfeited.


----------



## cuttlefish (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Actually my apologies, I've headed offf in the wrong direction with the stuff on warrants.

I had a further read and the BCSCA's aren't instalment warrants, they are under the managed funds and ETF's section and described as infrastructure funds.


----------



## barney (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> I then went into the Warrants section of the ASX web site and clicked on the "What are warrants" link.  Under there is a link to "types of warrants".  I followed this link.  Under there is a section that says 'instalments'.  I clicked on it.   Below is the second paragraph from under there.  Note that word 'optional' is bolded on the actual ASX web site.
> 
> 
> _Instalments allow you to gain exposure to shares (and other securities) by making a part payment upfront and delaying an *optional* final payment until a later date. This allows you to buy shares for a fraction of the current share price while receiving the benefits of capital growth, dividends and franking credits. _
> ...




Hi C/fish,  I guess they say optional because under normal circumstances you have the "option" to sell before the installment is due ..... Unfortunately, the current scenario is not normal ............... 

As I said earlier, there should be a provision from the  ASX, that if no trade can be initiated/completed with a share, you should be able to relinquish your holding back to the company ... ie you lose your initial investment, and the Co. retains your shares at no cost to them ..... This would eliminate the current circumstance of people unable to trade (no buyers) .......... 

I mean lets face it ... Why should the shareholders be crucified just because the Company is crap !! 

If I were a Judge ruling on this scenario of S/H's being sent to the wall because of a Co's bad management arrangements, I know what my ruling would be .............. Its just a bad joke and a wake up call for some system changes to stop it happening again.  Cheers.


----------



## skc (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Yes I think my first job is to see a lawyer who can protect my assets (I don't have many!!)  as well as seeing if I can transfer the shares somehow.




If you do protect yourself via a transfer, make sure that it is the shares that are transferred to a separate entity. Definitely NOT the other way, where you transfer your other assets away from yourself. Because if you still own the shares, BrisConnection will still have a claim on you personally. You will have to pay them back over the next 50 years or whatever... so you need to not just your consider your current assets (however little there are), but your future cashflow / assets as well.



barney said:


> As I said earlier, there should be a provision from the  ASX, that if no trade can be initiated/completed with a share, you should be able to relinquish your holding back to the company ... ie you lose your initial investment, and the Co. retains your shares at no cost to them ..... This would eliminate the current circumstance of people unable to trade (no buyers) ..........




I doubt this is a solution at all in this situation...it won't work because you are asking someone to take back a liability, not the equity.



barney said:


> I mean lets face it ... Why should the shareholders be crucified just because the Company is crap !!




I hope this is just a vent... shareholders are of course the ones to suffer because a company is crap... they own the company for crying out low!!



My hats off to Rocket also...good luck.


----------



## cuttlefish (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



barney said:


> Hi C/fish,  I guess they say optional because under normal circumstances you have the "option" to sell before the installment is due.




Barney as I understand it the typical situation with instalment warrants is that the payment of the additional instalments is truly  optional, a bit like a call option.  If the instalment is not paid the holder simply loses ownership of the stock and nothing more.

But I've realised that BCSCA are not instalment warrants, they are an infrastructure fund unit, so the stuff about warrants on the asx does not apply to them anyway.

The solution imo would have been to suspend the stock when the price fell to say 50c or 25c per share.  Below that price they became a very high risk investment that in my view should not have been kept available any more to retail investors.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Hi, I have been given the go ahead to post this again...
> 
> I have bought and sold hundreds of shares online, and wouldn't consider myself a naive investor. However I am now the proud owner of a $ 4 million debt, thanks to buying $2,000 worth of Brisconnect shares.
> 
> ...






shaunQ said:


> Well if you were to write and complain about this to someone - who would it be ASIC? The ASX? Your local member? The shareholders association?
> 
> I think someone should be taking this on.




I must disagree with the above posters.

One should not buy shares unless one is aware of the consequences.

Blind Freddie would have been aware that BCSCA was a contributing share and had a $2 kicker attached to its ridiculously low price.

More regulation will only lead to higher transaction costs for traders and investors.

Many naive investors lose daily on the asx and a fair few so called sophisticated investors as well.

It is easier to lose on the asx than win at present.

If a share price looks too good to be true it probably is.

Just because a few folk make a simple basic mistake should not lead to even more regulation.

gg

gg


----------



## Nyden (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> I must disagree with the above posters.
> 
> One should not buy shares unless one is aware of the consequences.
> 
> ...




I do agree with that - but we must consider the potential ramifications here. An individual can make a rather simple mistake here - a mistake with a mere $500, and wind up with 1 million dollars in liabilities! An 18 year old, fresh out of high school might buy a few hundred worth of these stocks in a drunken haste, in the spirit of a roulette spin - and wind up potentially losing everything they have! That's just insane.


----------



## skyQuake (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Nyden said:


> I do agree with that - but we must consider the potential ramifications here. An individual can make a rather simple mistake here - a mistake with a mere $500, and wind up with 1 million dollars in liabilities! An 18 year old, fresh out of high school might buy a few hundred worth of these stocks in a drunken haste, in the spirit of a roulette spin - and wind up potentially losing everything they have! That's just insane.




Agree with that, ASX is opening up a can of worms here. 

The problem is that you can buy these stapled securities _just like a normal share_; They have been compared to installment warrants which actually REQUIRES you to sign a disclosure statement before your broker allows you to trade them - (cause you might lose all your money in the warrant (gosh!).

T3: TLSCA was the same boat but there was no chance that was gonna go to 0 so nobody cared about rights and obligations...

Commsec had some good info about it:
http://www.comsec.com.au/public/news.aspx?id=1023


----------



## aleckara (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I believe with normal share trading the rule should be simple:

Maximum loss = What you put in. The whole reason why shares are not as risky as many other classes is that your losses are capped to the money you put in. This is the level that normal investors understand. 

It's a toll road, its got to be undervalued at its price. Why isn't anyone buying? Even if it is going bust it's only a measly $500 investment. Good odds. Therefore they buy.

The thing is if these securities were traded as warrants I doubt they would raise nearly as much money hence why they are the way they are.


----------



## barney (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



skc said:


> If you do protect yourself via a transfer, make sure that it is the shares that are transferred to a separate entity. Definitely NOT the other way, where you transfer your other assets away from yourself. Because if you still own the shares, BrisConnection will still have a claim on you personally. You will have to pay them back over the next 50 years or whatever... so you need to not just your consider your current assets (however little there are), but your future cashflow / assets as well.






Good advice


*(Sorry this second quote didn't paste correctly)*


			
				skc; I doubt this is a solution at all in this situation...it won't work because you are asking someone to take back a liability said:
			
		

> Appreciate your points SKC, and I realise that at this point in time I am putting forward an unrealistic argument, but I see some inherent problems in our "free market" system when .............
> 
> 1) On 99.9% of ocassions a shareholder selling and losing his shirt because a Co. is crap is an unfortunate part of how the market operates (no arguments from me there .... I've been down that road)  .......... BUT  .....
> 
> ...


----------



## drsmith (10 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



aleckara said:


> It's a toll road, its got to be undervalued at its price. Why isn't anyone buying? Even if it is going bust it's only a measly $500 investment. Good odds. Therefore they buy.



Because in terms of their $3 fully paid price no one currently values them $2 or more.

If (like TLSCA) the majority of the fully paid share price was covered by the the first instalment (say, $2 for example) then there still might have been a market for these securities even in the current depressed market.

One way to get the instalment receipts trading again would be to allow them to trade at a negative value relative to the the instalment price until they are fully paid. If, for example the market values the $3 fully paid equivalent at $1.50, the $1 instalment receipts would then trade at $-0.50. In practice this would mean that the purchaser would get $0.50 from the seller per instalment receipt.  This would then be retained by the stockbroker in the purchaser's account to go towards payment of the next instalment (for obvious reasons). This might be too difficult to do in practice however.


----------



## jet328 (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I'd go see your accountant tomorrow. Leave the action groups/regulators to last, its too risky & you may get no where.

I'm sure if you speak to your accountant you could do something like
-create a company, perform an off-market transfer to that company & then Macquarie can come after that new company
or if you created a SMSF and transferred them, then isn't a super fund non-recourse?
Both my suggestions are probably wrong, but I'm sure you can do something similar that will protect your other assets


----------



## korrupt_1 (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



drsmith said:


> One way to get the instalment receipts trading again would be to allow them to trade at a negative value




is that even at all possible? does that mean you will be PAID to own shares/receipts in that company? bizzare concept....


----------



## doctorj (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I can understand how someone who subscribed to the placement and still holds the stock at an installment date is liable.  They purchased the stock having atleast been issued the PDS and therefore agreeing all the terms of the placement.

But I can't understand how those that bought them on market later on could possibly be liable.  How can they be bound by terms not presented to them during the transaction?  They obviously weren't party to the initial contract during the placement and they clearly wouldn't have been presented with this material and significant terms when buying them.  Surely there's a strong arguement using basic contract law that there should be no recourse for people who bought these on-market?  Which then raises the question, should these securities even be listed?  Sounds much more suited to being an OTC product to me.


----------



## Prospector (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



jet328 said:


> I'd go see your accountant tomorrow.
> I'm sure if you speak to your accountant you could do something like
> -create a company, perform an off-market transfer to that company & then Macquarie can come after that new company




The company would need to be a PTY LTD which might cost around $800, but peanuts compared with any other scenario.  For what it's worth Jet, hubby made exactly the same suggestion as you!  :

It might stop you being a company director for a few years, but hopefully that wont matter to you.

DoctorJ, totally agree with your logic.  These warrants should never have been available for sale without the PDS - and you have to acknowledge online that you have read it - crikeys, several share forums have a similar disclaimer just to enter - if they need it, why doesnt the ASX!


----------



## Enzyme (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hi Rocket,

I'm sorry to hear of your situation.  I've been following this mess for a few weeks now.  I do think there will be a way out for you using an off-market transfer.  But please get some professional advice before acting on any of these suggestions.

If you are not familiar with off market transfers, you fill out a form to transfer the shares to a new owner.  All you need is the SRN and the signatures of the original owner and new owner.  Here is a sample form:  link

Some suggestions for how to use this way to offload your Brisconnections shares are as follows:

1.  Donate them to charity.  Lots of charities have an off-market transfer form online that lets you transfer shares to a charity.  Google it and see.  As the transfer does need someone at the charity to sign the form and send it on it might not work 100% of the time.  But if you systematically tried every charity you could find I'm sure you'd get someone agree to take on your 'donation' without realising the implications.

2.  Donate them to a homeless person.  Find a homeless person in your nearest large city and offer them a fist full of cash to sign your form.  The homeless person benefits from getting your cash and have nothing to fear from the company debt collectors - because they have nothing to lose.

3.  Go on an overseas trip to a poor country and offer a poor local a fist full of cash to sign the form.  This is very similar to the above option.

4.  Donate them to a person who doesn't exist.  Make up a name and get a mate to sign for them.  There is a precident where someone has transferred shares to their pet budgie, but it is probably illegal.  link

I saw this comment from a brisconnections shareholder who did get professional advice.  His comment was in reply to the suggestion for transferring the shares to a homeless person:  link



> I got out of this with a stack of shares (many millions) in the most recent and last big day of trading. I was going to go down the path of the homeless person and I do think it would work. Close to homeless people live in boarding houses and do have an address. Beauty of these houses is that there are plenty to talk to about this and I do think it would work for as little as $5K. Prior to selling and thinking I was a goner I spoke with a bankruptcy firm in Sydney who assured me it would be very easy for them to transfer the shares ($10K cost to transferee plus probably $10K firm costs) to a company about to go down the bankruptcy path. They would then go into liquidation prior to settlement and all clean. I also got legal advice on this and it was optimistic that the bankruptcy administrator would not "set this aside". This is all I'll say on the issue but you can get out of this with a bit of rat cunning!!!!!! Good luck and I feel for all those stuck!!




I've been looking at the market depth for BCS every day for weeks.  Every day there would be a few extra sellers and more shares for sale.  But yesterday there was a drop in the number of sellers and an almost 15% drop in the number of shares listed for sale.  I'm guessing that a lot of those 15 million shares which are no longer for sale have been disposed of by off-market transfers.  The only way Fang He could have sold her 32.5 million shares was through an off-market transfer.

I hope you manage to get out.  I think you should be able to with an off-market transfer.  Good luck!


----------



## James Austin (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Hi Rocket,
> 
> Some suggestions for how to use this way to offload your Brisconnections shares are as follows:
> 
> ...





i like your style enzyme, but a little unscrupulous, particularly no#1.

but no#4 sounds good. i'm not fond of the neighbors guinne pig which now inhabits our shed. will he need to sign the document, or merely sight it?


----------



## Enzyme (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

'unscrupulous' is being kind.  Thanks.

Yes, your neighbors guinne pig would need to sign, or someone sign for him.


----------



## rocket12 (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Hi Rocket,
> 
> I'm sorry to hear of your situation.  I've been following this mess for a few weeks now.  I do think there will be a way out for you using an off-market transfer.  But please get some professional advice before acting on any of these suggestions.
> 
> ...




Thanks for all the advice, my accountant is getting back to me with what he thinks is the best way of doing this.  

Regarding the depth, it is dropping daily now because by default your sell bid only stays in the system for 20 days, so the sell bids daily are dropping off, and some people maybe dont know this and are not putting in their sell bid again.  I know I have around 15 million shares ahead of me in the queue, and on the 16th of this month my sell bid will drop off and I will be striaight into commsec with my sell bid that morning back at the end of the queue.  This has only now started happening in bulk because it was around 20 trading days ago that we all piled on trying to sell.  

Fang He sold her shares to Nicholas Bolton from Style investments in Melbourne in an online trade.  Interestingly he is now the major shareholder, and he hasn't put them up for sale.  Brisconnections cant get hold of him, so nobody knows what he is planning to do....Me thinks hes up to someting...


----------



## James Austin (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> 'unscrupulous' is being kind.  Thanks.
> 
> Yes, your neighbors guinne pig would need to sign, or someone sign for him.




what would legally constitute the guinne pigs consent, if i were to sign on his behalf?


----------



## Enzyme (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hmm.  well, err, I'm not sure.

A quick google gives more detail on how the shares were transferred to the budgie here, but then the share registry found out and reversed the transfer here - so the shares reverted to the original owner.

So maybe that isn't the way to go.


----------



## Enzyme (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Thanks for all the advice, my accountant is getting back to me with what he thinks is the best way of doing this.
> 
> Regarding the depth, it is dropping daily now because by default your sell bid only stays in the system for 20 days, so the sell bids daily are dropping off, and some people maybe dont know this and are not putting in their sell bid again.  I know I have around 15 million shares ahead of me in the queue, and on the 16th of this month my sell bid will drop off and I will be striaight into commsec with my sell bid that morning back at the end of the queue.  This has only now started happening in bulk because it was around 20 trading days ago that we all piled on trying to sell.
> 
> *Fang He sold her shares to Nicholas Bolton from Style investments in Melbourne in an online trade.*  Interestingly he is now the major shareholder, and he hasn't put them up for sale.  Brisconnections cant get hold of him, so nobody knows what he is planning to do....Me thinks hes up to someting...




Are you sure?

I thought those trades were unrelated and took place on different days.  If you look at the BCSCA ASX announcements, Fang He sold her shares in two batches.  A small one on 5 November and 30 million+ on 13 November (link).  Nick Bolton brought his on 24 November (link).

I do wonder what he is going to do.


----------



## freddy2 (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

It appears to me (not a lawyer or accountant) that the "seller" does not have an obligation to make sure the "buyer" has the ability to make the future payments as many would not have been able to buy through Commsec in the first place. 

It looks like Macquarie bank were too smart by half with the financial engineering of this deal.


----------



## rocket12 (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> I thought those trades were unrelated and took place on different days.  If you look at the BCSCA ASX announcements, Fang He sold her shares in two batches.  A small one on 5 November and 30 million+ on 13 November (link).  Nick Bolton brought his on 24 November (link).
> 
> I do wonder what he is going to do.




Yeah not too sure, I just thought I read that in an article.  But it would be good to know if she sold them on or off the market!!


----------



## Enzyme (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I thought she sold them off-market, for a couple of reasons.

Mainly because Brisconnections still doesn't know who brought her shares.  They knew 'Australian Style Investments' had brought in on the day it happened because that was on market.  But weeks later they still don't know who brought Fang He's shares.  From this link:



> Fang He, the Melbourne housewife who bought 8% of the company ”” with a potential $65 million debt to the company ”” has sold her shares. BrisConnections is desperate for her to file a substantial shareholder notice to discover who now owns the shares




It is now over a month since she sold her shares and the company still has not given a notice as to who owns her 8% of the company.  I assume that has to be because it was an off market transfer.

The other reason I figure she did it off market is that there were no on-market buyers.  Except for Mr Bolton, but he came in a week after she had 'sold'.


----------



## drsmith (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



korrupt_1 said:


> is that even at all possible? does that mean you will be PAID to own shares/receipts in that company? bizzare concept....



I doubt it would be possible but to me it's the only way the market can value the instalment receipts.

It would not be free money either as the purchaser will have still aquired the liability associated with future instalment payments.


----------



## cuttlefish (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Given that the majority of these shareholders probably purchased in the 0.001 to 0.002 sort of range, its unlikely that any of them will come close to meeting the liability which is 1000 times their purchase cost.

If BCS even got back $.05 to the $1 via pursuing these shareholders through debt collectors etc. they'd probably be doing extremely well.   (that would mean that for every single $500 parcel bought at .001 they managed to go after the holder and get back $25,000 - to me that would be an extraordinarily good recovery rate - most peoples banks have first dibs on any assets they hold via property mortgages so BCS will be second in line behind anyone that has genuine hard assets, and a lot of the holders will be young people that haven't got more than $10 or $20k in recoverable assets anyway.


If we assume that somebody out there actually believes that the company is worth something, what they could do is find someone that is willing to buy the lot for say 20c for all three instalments.  (i.e. get the fully paid up units for 20c).  If they put it out to a book build process they might even get a lot more - they might get 80c or even $1.50 - who knows - at one stage people seemed to think they were worth $3.00.    They could work with Macquarie to do this, do the book build, buy out the minor shareholders that want to sell, sell the whole lump to the corporate buyer. 

 Macquarie would still have to stump up for the difference as per the underwriting agreement, but at least they would have to stump up far less, and BCS would not have the PR nightmare and massive headache of having to pursue hundreds (thousands?) of shareholders through the bankruptcy courts.

And if they can't find a buyer to purchase fully paid up units at 20c a pop then the company should possibly face the facts that in the current market nobody is prepared to back the project properly and consider other more radical solutions.


I guess the only flaw in the solution above is that Macquarie gets any defaulted units now if the holder defaults on the installment so under the scenario I describe they'd expect to still get units for meeting the shortfall as per the underwriting agreement.

Still its not hard to see that if BCS is pro-active they could come up with a solution that still recovers some funds from the small shareholders without having the do the bankruptcy approach.  e.g. they could do a 'negative priced' buyback.   BCS will take back units if the holder pays them $0.1 per unit.  (hows that - a reverse float - pay us money to give us our shares back ...).

I still find the whole situation really quite bizzarre.


----------



## aleckara (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



drsmith said:


> Because in terms of their $3 fully paid price no one currently values them $2 or more.
> 
> If (like TLSCA) the majority of the fully paid share price was covered by the the first instalment (say, $2 for example) then there still might have been a market for these securities even in the current depressed market.




Of course I understand that. I'm speaking for the likes of Mum and Dad out there  and their thinking process. Most think a toll road at the bottom of the market might be a safe buy and that it will recover. They barely understand share trading (other than the basics) yet alone the complexities and risks of warrants.

They would hear the terms warrant, $2 unpaid, and would ignore it thinking it was a technical detail. They are under the illusion of limited liability like most new investors are. There should be access rights if you want to take on more risk than this. These investors signed up for a share trading account, not a warrant account. They should be able to appreciate the right of limited liability for all stocks they are able to purchase. If they want to purchase these sort of stocks they should need to apply for a higher level of risk allowance in their trading account (similar to options trading levels).

Companies are really hungry for cash these days, and they are getting reckless. Guess that's what happens when you are put into a corner.


----------



## tcoates (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Was a little hard to find, but the this link

http://www.asx.com.au/ListingRules/guidance/gn18_market_codes_and_trading_procedures.pdf

explains the different security codes. See attachment within the document.

Whatever happened to "cavet emptor"?

Tim

PS. I do feel for those who got in at the beginning. But if you were turn a quick profit... and with all the news articles on this stock... well...


----------



## rocket12 (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



tcoates said:


> Was a little hard to find, but the this link
> 
> http://www.asx.com.au/ListingRules/guidance/gn18_market_codes_and_trading_procedures.pdf
> 
> ...




Well done, I gave after 5 hours of looking for it!!  Still cant find it, where is the initial link (I assume it's listing rules) on the main page http://www.asx.com.au/ 

The people that have got burnt got in before it hit mainstream media, that's why nobody is buying now because it's all over the press.


----------



## barney (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> 1.  Donate them to charity.  Lots of charities have an off-market transfer form online that lets you transfer shares to a charity.  Google it and see.  As the transfer does need someone at the charity to sign the form and send it on it might not work 100% of the time.  But if you systematically tried every charity you could find I'm sure you'd get someone agree to take on your 'donation' without realising the implications.




Geez Enzyme ..... Remind me not to buy a used car from you .... LOL


----------



## Prospector (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> 1.  Donate them to charity.  Lots of charities have an off-market transfer form online that lets you transfer shares to a charity.  Google it and see.  As the transfer does need someone at the charity to sign the form and send it on it might not work 100% of the time.  But if you systematically tried every charity you could find I'm sure you'd get someone agree to take on your 'donation' without realising the implications.
> 
> 2.  Donate them to a homeless person.  Find a homeless person in your nearest large city and offer them a fist full of cash to sign your form.  The homeless person benefits from getting your cash and have nothing to fear from the company debt collectors - because they have nothing to lose.
> 
> ...




Are you serious?   I hope he has more ethics than any of these suggestions.

I think Ms Fang's shares were sold on a Sunday - so must be an offline transfer.


----------



## rocket12 (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



tcoates said:


> Was a little hard to find, but the this link
> 
> http://www.asx.com.au/ListingRules/guidance/gn18_market_codes_and_trading_procedures.pdf
> 
> ...




OK I found it eventually, hehe a little hard to find... 

one of of the 13 links on the left hand side of the main page
www.asx.com.au  click on the "market supervision and rules" link

Then in the drop down menu click one of the 11 links "rules guidance notes and waivers"

Then click on one of the 19 links in the middle of the page "guidance notes"

Then click on one of the 27 links "market codes and trading proceedures"

Then scroll down 5 pages and you find the information that apparently only the dumbest of retail investors doesn't know....

Cant believe I missed it....


----------



## TheAbyss (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Back in October Brisconnect released a statement regarding deferring the dividend payment and listed their reasons which were based around share price dilution and the quantity of smaller holders joining the register. The release had the below statement included so if you purchased for dividends this surely must have been noticed by potential and current holders in October? 

Any other purchasers since October should be looking in the mirror and asking why they are buying and selling shares at all. That isn't to say we don't all make mistakes and this is right up there with the all time best but surely if you are a trader you must be doing some sort of research? I would have thought a dividend statement would grab the eye? 

If research isnt for you then a broker is what you should be using to buy and sell shares. Their commission covers their skill sets which would surely have including knowling what CA extensions meant? After all isnt this why brokers have a job? If a broker didnt advise you of the stapled component they would be responsible (Perhaps?).

Full market release here

http://www.brisconnections.com.au/Portals/0/docs/660958_081030.pdf

Excerpt from dividend statement in October 

*About BrisConnections*

An investment in BrisConnections Unit Trusts comprises a stapled security made up of one unit in BrisConnections Investment Trust and one unit in BrisConnections Holding Trust. Stapled securities in BrisConnections are partly paid securities and are listed on the Australian Stock Exchange under the code “BCSCA”. There are 2 further instalments of $1.00 each per stapled security payable on 29 April 2009 and 29 January 2010 respectively.


----------



## rocket12 (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



TheAbyss said:


> Back in October Brisconnect released a statement regarding deferring the dividend payment and listed their reasons which were based around share price dilution and the quantity of smaller holders joining the register. The release had the below statement included so if you purchased for dividends this surely must have been noticed by potential and current holders in October?
> 
> Any other purchasers since October should be looking in the mirror and asking why they are buying and selling shares at all. That isn't to say we don't all make mistakes and this is right up there with the all time best but surely if you are a trader you must be doing some sort of research? I would have thought a dividend statement would grab the eye?
> 
> ...




Iv'e bought hundreds of shares online, and made myself and the govt some nice coin.  I have admitted I didn't go through the hundreds of released announcements.  I went to the brisconnections website and looked over the investor page and it all looked good, I looked over all the research pages and decided to buy.  I didn't realize I had to investigate this hidden sting.

I will continue to use Commsec and continue to make and lose money.  But obviously I now know to steer away from 5 letter codes that have a "c" as the fourth letter.  

But the fact remains that Commsec etc will always be around, and retail investors will always be around, so unless the companies listing these contributing shares ensure that the online brokers inform their clients this will all happen again.

I am perfectly happy to admit to making mistakes, but I don't think you had to be that much of a dummy to fall for this one.


----------



## TheAbyss (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Rocket12. Sorry if i was a bit blunt. I do acknowledge that it was a simple mistake to make and the realisation must have been horrendous when the full implications were realised.

The end result will be interesting to say the least and i wish all share holders well with this one.


----------



## rocket12 (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



TheAbyss said:


> Rocket12. Sorry if i was a bit blunt. I do acknowledge that it was a simple mistake to make and the realisation must have been horrendous when the full implications were realised.
> 
> The end result will be interesting to say the least and i wish all share holders well with this one.




No probs, yes I had kittens for a couple of days when I found out, but have no stress now.  The good thing for all that fell for it is we have plenty of time to protect our stuff to make it as hard as possible for them to get anything.  Iv'e allready tranfered my shares to an orphanage in Los Lobos...:


----------



## TheAbyss (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Wise move. 

When did you buy these shares Rocket? The news articles have been around since november warning oif this stuff. Even the news link on Commsec had a reference dated to prior to your posted Commsec shots.

20/20 hindsight is a better view of course.

I have sent an email into Bcs to test the water on their position so let you know how it goes.


----------



## cuttlefish (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



TheAbyss said:


> *About BrisConnections*
> 
> An investment in BrisConnections Unit Trusts comprises a stapled security made up of one unit in BrisConnections Investment Trust and one unit in BrisConnections Holding Trust. Stapled securities in BrisConnections are partly paid securities and are listed on the Australian Stock Exchange under the code “BCSCA”. There are 2 further instalments of $1.00 each per stapled security payable on 29 April 2009 and 29 January 2010 respectively.





Abyss - what this statement doesn't indicate is whether the intalments are mandatory or optional.  As has already been discussed in this thread, there are instalment products (instalment warrants) on the ASX where the instalment is optional - I don't see it as clear to anyone by this statement that the instalment was mandatory, except via explicit reading of the sub-sections in the PDS.

I think the mistake made is completely understandable - I do a lot of research on stocks that I purchase but I could easily have made the mistake on this one of not realising the additional instalment payments were mandatory and not optional.  I'd like to think I would have picked up on it, but who knows.


----------



## TheAbyss (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Just did a quick search and warning signs from as far back as the day this dog listed July 2008. There has been fair warning here for quite a while for anyone with a passing interest imo

August 02, 2008 12:00am

INVESTORS have fled the year's largest sharemarket float, with $240 million

wiped off BrisConnections market capitalisation in barely 48 hours. The price of BrisConnections stapled securities yesterday slumped to a low of 36.5c, well down on their $1 issue price ahead of its float on Thursday.

The stock ended down 2.5c or 6 per cent at 38.5c on volume of 35.5 million securities. The fall translates to 20 per cent of the issued stock changing hands in two days.

Queensland Investment Corp, which holds 6.4 per cent, was particularly hard hit, watching $15 million wiped off the value of its investment since the market debut.

However, the $1.23 billion float of the 6.7km toll road linking Brisbane with the airport and northern suburbs is shaping up as a bonanza for investment banks, particularly Macquarie, which stands to reap $110 million in transaction fees.

*The bulk of yesterday's selling was thought to have come from institutions cutting their losses, particularly given two more instalment payments on the securities are required for BrisConnections of $1 each.*
The largest parcel traded was for more than 10 million BrisConnection securities.

Chairman Trevor Rowe said it was hard to tell who was selling as it involved a lot of nominee companies.

"Clearly, this is a very volatile market with strong negative sentiment but notwithstanding that this is a company with quality assets," he said.

"It is basically three toll roads built into one across Brisbane's CBD and port to the airport and what the market is not doing is differentiating the quality of these projects."

Mr Rowe expected that once sentiment settled, buying would come back into the market because the stock represented a 28 per cent yield on current prices.

He pointed out the contract was guaranteed by Leighton Holdings and "they have not failed to complete a project in their history".

Analysts said those who subscribed to the issue in May were facing a very different market today.


----------



## rocket12 (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



TheAbyss said:


> Wise move.
> 
> When did you buy these shares Rocket? The news articles have been around since november warning oif this stuff. Even the news link on Commsec had a reference dated to prior to your posted Commsec shots.
> 
> ...




My first purchase was early Nov up until mid nov.  There were no articles when I bought them as it is one thing I do like to lookup on Commsec.  Although I've learnt since a google news search would have helped me a lot...Anyway this one is definately my last post...Thanks everyone!!


----------



## TheAbyss (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Response from BCS below. I have removed contact names etc. Happy to post if deemed appropriate. Dead end is the bottom line. Only out i can see is Government cancel the project and start a new one. That relieves everyone of the responsibilites and saves Campbells butt as he and QIC are the chiefs on this traiun wreck.

See this link for a great summary of the fiasco.

http://www.maynereport.com/articles/2008/07/31-1409-2667.html

Thank you for your email.

If you purchased at the current market rate $2000 of stapled securities would purchase you 2 million securities.  There are two more instalments owed, on each stapled security, worth $1 each, which would mean you are liable to pay $2 million dollars in April 29,2009 and another $2 million dollars in January, 2010.

 If you do not want to be liable to pay an instalment, you need to have sold your stapled securities before the date when the liability for payment of that instalment is determined.  You should be aware that there may be a limited market for BrisConnections stapled securities in the periods after the dates when liability for payment is determined, but prior to the instalment payment dates, which may affect your ability to sell your stapled securities during these periods.  

We suggest that you seek advice regarding your investment from your broker, accountant or other professional adviser.  We cannot provide financial advice to you.

BrisConnections cannot create a market for securities.  However, we continue to conduct briefings with analysts, brokers and institutional investors and are in regular contact with the investment community regarding BrisConnections’ business and prospects in compliance with BrisConnections continuous disclosure requirements.

It is not possible to change or defer the instalment structure and still preserve the integrity of the project.  Nor is it possible for BrisConnections to buy-back securities off persons who are unable or unwilling to pay the instalment or cancel the instalment and still preserve the integrity of the financial and project structure.

Thank you for your interest and support of BrisConnections.


----------



## Julia (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> 1.  Donate them to charity.  Lots of charities have an off-market transfer form online that lets you transfer shares to a charity.  Google it and see.  As the transfer does need someone at the charity to sign the form and send it on it might not work 100% of the time.  But if you systematically tried every charity you could find I'm sure you'd get someone agree to take on your 'donation' without realising the implications.



Good Lord, I hope you're being facetious.  Suspect you are actually serious.
Morality obviously isn't a priority.



> 2.  Donate them to a homeless person.  Find a homeless person in your nearest large city and offer them a fist full of cash to sign your form.  The homeless person benefits from getting your cash and have nothing to fear from the company debt collectors - because they have nothing to lose.



You don't think a homeless person already has quite enough stress without getting hassled by debt collectors?


----------



## Julia (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



> http://www.asx.com.au/ListingRules/g...procedures.pdf




Tim, thanks for posting that link.   

I recall a few months ago when Incitec Pivot did a 20 to 1 split, for a while they had, I think, "CA" attached to the IPL code.

Then it reverted to the plain IPL.

Does anyone know why this was?
Presumably to let potential buyers know of the altered value of the share?


----------



## tcoates (11 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Julia,

it was IPLDA

DA = deferred settlement

rocket12,



> My first purchase was early Nov up until mid nov. There were no articles when I bought them as it is one thing I do like to lookup on Commsec.




You are right about Commsec. Even google finance had very few news items.  There were plenty of (enough) articles in the newspapers (at least in Brisbane). ODD.

Tim


----------



## lesm (12 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

It has been interesting observing some of the comments in this thread. Ihave no interest or holindings in this company.

A number of posters need to seriously review their morals and ethics, as some suggestions have the potential to fall foul of the relevant 'fraud statutes'. Be aware that any action or activity intended to deliberately deprive another  party from exercising its legal rights to recover a debt owing to it or to avoid paying the debt may may be considered a fraudulent act. In these circumstances the court does have the power and authority to reverse any associated transactions in order to recover assets. Be aware that it is also a  criminal act. Suggesting or advising another party to perform an act that may by defintion be considerd illegal has potential ramifications for the suggestor.

While a level of sympathy or compassion may be warranted, there are a number of practical realities realated to trading or investing in the equities market.

The 'CA' code suffix has a known meaning and usage on the ASX and this in itself should have flagged the nature of the share being offered or that further research needed to be undertaken if the buyer was not aware of the suffix.

It appears that other installment based shares, such as 'tlsca' didn't ring any bells for for a range of people. Hence, these are not a new product style of share offering. Similar to other shares of this nature, any purchaser takes on the obligation to pay the installment, no differently to a purchaser that bought these shares as part of the original IPO.

Although people may not have read the original PDS, information was available, as to the type of share, via the relevant ASX announcements or news on sites such as Commsec. The investor presentation was posted on the Commsec site with a date and title of '10/9/2008 9:57 am Investor Presentation'. It is shown in the list of announcements from the Comsec site higher in the thread. The information as to nature of the share/offering is included in the presentation.

Anyone reading this would be aware that the company was raising capital to fund the project and that distributions would be made to shareholders as part of this offering. It is straightfoward to determine that the company would earn no revenue until the toll roads were open and operational. Hence, any investor would need to make a decision to purchase or not would make a decision based on the information. Speculator traders would probably use a different basis for buying or selling.

The dilemma in today's market is that with the advent of online trading/investing and the ease by which people can buy and sell shares, is that the people lacking knowledge or any level of sophistication can make costly mistakes.

By forgoing the the use of a broker or financial advisor, probably to reduce costs or lack of confidence in these parties, people are doing it themselves. In doing so they are inferring that they have a reasonable understanding and knowledge of market operation and structure, including the various codes used to describe different types of shares or transactions. There is no pre-qualification required to determine even a fundamental understanding let alone any understanding at all, just open and fund an account with an online broker and trade away.

It would be further assumed that anyone dealing in the markets in this manner is conducting a level of research or anlaysis prior to making a decision to purchase or sell shares. Whether it is by fundamental analysis, technical analysis, reading tea leaves or any combination is neither here nor there.

There are risks under any approach and people can only be protected to a certain level, but you can't always protect them from themelves.

In this situation, we have a company that has issued installment based shares, which it is entitled to do, but it shares have basically hit the bottom as far as a share price can go. We now find that a number buyers of these shares have bought substantive numbers of shares and incurred a significant financial liability. To make matters worse there are no buyers for these shares, so the previous buyers cannot sell and the equity market has no formal requirement to 'make a market' for individual shares.

This is further exacerbated by the current market conditions.

If there was a market and the sellers could get out we probably wouldn't here anythin about this situation. What is also intersting of the buyers of these shares how many were actually investors and how many were traders hoping for quick profit from fluctuations in the share price.

Besides those who have made an honest mistake by not understanding the nature of the 'CA' code or the installment liabilities is, how many will piggyback on any legal action to avoid the installment payment, if it occurs, in attempt to nullify or reduce the financial liability.

It will be intesting to watch events as they unfold in the ensuing months. If Slater and Gordon are already looking at this it will be interesting to see how they proceed if they believe they can make a case. A trial would be interesting, as it has the potential to create some legal precedents in this area. Regardless of the outcome it would be intesting to see what, if any impact it may have related to online trading and the ASX, especially with regard to installment based shares.

For those holding substantive numbers of these share, I hope everything works out for you and that you are able to dispose of your shares before the installment record date via normal means.


----------



## doctorj (12 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



lesm said:


> Although people may not have read the original PDS, information was available, as to the type of share, via the relevant ASX announcements or news on sites such as Commsec. The investor presentation was posted on the Commsec site with a date and title of '10/9/2008 9:57 am Investor Presentation'. It is shown in the list of announcements from the Comsec site higher in the thread. The information as to nature of the share/offering is included in the presentation.



I doubt the information 'being available' is sufficient for it to be enforceable. I'm not a lawyer, but I recall a case where the seller of a house didn't tell the buyer that a major highway was to be built very near to the house.  After buying the house, the buyer found this out and the sale was nullified by the court.  The information being available to the public (at the planning office, fliers in the area etc) was insufficient to make the contract enforceable.   Surely it's the same concept here?


----------



## chops_a_must (12 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Some suggestions for how to use this way to offload your Brisconnections shares are as follows:
> 
> 1.  Donate them to charity.  Lots of charities have an off-market transfer form online that lets you transfer shares to a charity.  Google it and see.  As the transfer does need someone at the charity to sign the form and send it on it might not work 100% of the time.  But if you systematically tried every charity you could find I'm sure you'd get someone agree to take on your 'donation' without realising the implications.
> 
> ...



Bahahahahahahahahahahahaha! 



Julia said:


> You don't think a homeless person already has quite enough stress without getting hassled by debt collectors?




Clearly not Julia! 

Most of these people choose to be in the situation they are in, getting handouts and generally lazing about in parks in the morning, enjoying the morning sun.

As opposed to the typically droll existence most of these people live, being chased by macbank hired goons could prove to be a fun filled adventure that gives justification to the paranoid schizophrenic delusions most of these people have. The benefit being, it is just the thing they need to prove they aren't crazy.


----------



## lesm (12 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



doctorj said:


> I doubt the information 'being available' is sufficient for it to be enforceable. I'm not a lawyer, but I recall a case where the seller of a house didn't tell the buyer that a major highway was to be built very near to the house.  After buying the house, the buyer found this out and the sale was nullified by the court.  The information being available to the public (at the planning office, fliers in the area etc) was insufficient to make the contract enforceable.   Surely it's the same concept here?




If this goes to court it could be very interesting, as to how counsel will argue this from either side and what decisions will be made by the judiciary (or the jury decison if it were to be a jury trial). The latter may occur if it were to be brought to court as a 'class action', due to the number of potential shareholders involved.

Is the publication and the public availability of a PDS or other supportive announcements considered legally sufficient? 
That will be a matter for the court to determine rather than a public forum or the media.

How much research and due diligence prior to the purchase of a share is considerered reasonable and sufficient?
Again, this may become a matter for the court to determine.

By foregoing professional advice, in any manner and form, the purchaser is effectively inferring that they have sufficient knowledge and experience to make a decison related to a share purchase in their own right, including understanding the relevant obligations, risks and consequences.

It will be interesting to watch this unfold, as time progresses.


----------



## experttipps (12 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

article on Australian Shareholders Association's website.

http://www.asa.asn.au/ShareholderOpinion.asp?ID=SO202.xml


----------



## cuttlefish (12 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



chops_a_must said:


> As opposed to the typically droll existence most of these people live, being chased by macbank hired goons could prove to be a fun filled adventure that gives justification to the paranoid schizophrenic delusions most of these people have. *The benefit being, it is just the thing they need to prove they aren't crazy.*




haha - interesting take on the situation - I can just see it.

"See, I told you, they're after me for a million bucks"

"Ahh yeah right Fred ... pull the other one ... who would extend a million bucks credit to someone who's never had more than $500 bucks to rub together?"

"But its true, they really are after me for a million bucks"

"yeah ok,  have another swig of vino".



I used to run around the park near the domain at lunchtimes when I worked in the city, and there was this homeless bloke living in a cave.  We'd jog past him and he'd look at us like we were insane as he sat in his cave, enjoying the sun, sipping his beer whilst looking out at his harbour views.   

Yep - definitely a nutter we thought - as we sweated away running around in a circle for no clear reason, before heading off to our dingy flourescant lit caves to slog away on meaningless projects for some faceless business owner in a far off land.


----------



## YELNATS (12 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> Yep - definitely a nutter we thought - as we sweated away running around in a circle for no clear reason, before heading off to our dingy flourescant lit caves to slog away on meaningless projects for some faceless business owner in a far off land.




Clancy of the Domain? "While he(you) faced the round eternal of the cash-book and the journal" AB Paterson


----------



## cuttlefish (12 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



YELNATS said:


> Clancy of the Domain? "While he(you) faced the round eternal of the cash-book and the journal" AB Paterson




 Yep - very much so!    (where a stingy ray of sunlight struggles feebly down between the houses tall ).


----------



## Sunder (12 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



doctorj said:


> I doubt the information 'being available' is sufficient for it to be enforceable. I'm not a lawyer, but I recall a case where the seller of a house didn't tell the buyer that a major highway was to be built very near to the house.  After buying the house, the buyer found this out and the sale was nullified by the court.  The information being available to the public (at the planning office, fliers in the area etc) was insufficient to make the contract enforceable.   Surely it's the same concept here?




Odd. A friend of mine worked on a case where a client bought a cafe, that was in a street where the street was due to be closed to pedestrian traffic for a few months for pavement repairs and other streetside upgrades.

He refused to take on the case, citing previous examples of "caveat emptor", and the likelihood that this case would fail. 

The case was taken on by a smaller firm, and the buyer of the cafe lost, once again, the judge citing "caveat emptor".


----------



## Sunder (12 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> There were no articles when I bought them as it is one thing I do like to lookup on Commsec.




You're cutting it damn fine on dates:

This was published Nov 14th. 

http://www.comsec.com.au/public/news.aspx?id=1023


----------



## rocket12 (12 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> You're cutting it damn fine on dates:
> 
> This was published Nov 14th.
> 
> http://www.comsec.com.au/public/news.aspx?id=1023




Not sure what your point is.  We were talking about the BCSCA news page. (attached) I wouldn't know where to find that link you have posted.  Can you show me and everyone else what links you need to follow from the Commsec main page to find this link.  I gather it isn't in the members research section of Commsec...


----------



## Sunder (13 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Not sure what your point is.  We were talking about the BCSCA news page. (attached) I wouldn't know where to find that link you have posted.  Can you show me and everyone else what links you need to follow from the Commsec main page to find this link.  I gather it isn't in the members research section of Commsec...




It's aged off by now, but for about two weeks, it was on the main login page, front and centre. (Where the red circle is)






The point is, you almost have to intentionally close your eyes to the fact that this is not a normal stock.  Layer after layer after layer of "hints" that this is a partially paid security. They may not have been intuitive, but they were there. 

The Comsec chart lists the security as $1 PD. I didn't know what that meant, but a quick google told me it stands for $1 paid. Since no other share says $1 paid, what does that imply? That more needs to be paid? Even if you couldn't find a result for it, would you buy a share not knowing what something described in it's title meant?






I know there are plenty of "trusts" that don't owe money, but why is a road builder a trust? Does that indicate something odd about their business? A quick look at investopedia says 







> "A fiduciary relationship in which one party, known as a trustor, gives another party, the trustee, the right to hold title to property or assets for the benefit of a third party, the beneficiary. "




Maybe that they're holding money in trust until it's needed? In which case, what are you investing in? A road builder? Or a fund raiser for a road builder? Did it matter to you at all? And if it didn't do you deserve to get burned?

There have been some very high profile partially paid securities. TLS*CA* for example. Even if it didn't click with you that "CA" means something special, considering the fact normal securites are 3 codes, wouldn't you at least stop to check what a 5 letter code meant?

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh here. I don't know. Perhaps hindsight is 20/20, where these things I'm pointing out were hard to see at the time. But I've always had the policy of never investing in something I don't understand - so when my stock scanners turned up all kinds of weird codes for instruments I never understood, I simply filtered out everything except standard equities. 

The law has never seen ignorance as a reason to break a civil contract, unless there was intentional deception on the other party. Hell, even S10s, which are handed out like candy at Halloween, need you to prove that it was not only an honest, but REASONABLE mistake that you made.  (A section 10 is where guilt is proven, but no conviction recorded because an honest and reasonable mistake has been made - usually on a minor infringement, where there is no counter party to hurt by providing the person an out. An example is a 50 zone with all the signs stolen or defaced. A reasonable person might make the honest mistake of driving at 60km/h, but a reasonable person would not assume a residential zone was 80km/h, despite the fact that the law says that any unmarked zones with no street lights is automatically 80)

Considering how much information is available about partially paid securities, and how many "hints" are available, I hardly see that too many judges are going to say this is a "reasonable" mistake, no matter how honest it was.

I think I'm gonna shut up about this now. There is no point arguing with someone who is stuck with the security. They're always going to feel hard done by. I have more sympathy for the MQG shareholders, as they are almost certain to have to front up the money for someone else's careless mistake, no matter how much that person feels like they were misled into taking that debt on. 

*<Disclosure. I do not hold, neither am I intending to hold either security>*


----------



## rocket12 (13 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Do you seriously think that a couple of hints (not layer after layer of hints) is enough to inform people that they are purchasing a huge debt??.. 

Why in gods name does it take until you actually hit the buy button for you to only then be told in plain english these are contributing shares??

Your speeding analogy helps highlight this.  A driver goes through those three main speed zones dozens of times every single time they get in the car.  Even then they can make that honest mistake.  But as soon as the authorities realize the signs have been removed would put them up asap so that people wouldn't keep speeding.

I've purchased hundreds of shares online and never come across one of these shares.  I can only count 3 shares out of the thousands in the whole industrial sector that are contributing.  

And as I have said before, yes I agree that I may have been a "little" niave for falling for this, but that pales compared to the naivety shown by the people who put this together.  They know that the market is full of retail investors speeding through the 50kmh zones yet for some reason put up no signs at all.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Do you seriously think that a couple of hints (not layer after layer of hints) is enough to inform people that they are purchasing a huge debt??..
> 
> Why in gods name does it take until you actually hit the buy button for you to only then be told in plain english these are contributing shares??
> 
> ...




Its a market like any other market. People get done over every day.

Why should the naive have protection.

Orphans can be widowed, its life. Get over it.

Caveat Emptor.

If they can't hack it they should be selling firewood door to door or else take up godbothering of a Sunday.

gg


----------



## Macquack (13 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Get over it.
> 
> gg




I would not say to someone who got tricked/trapped into a $4 million debt to "get over it". They might turn violent.

GG, if this happened to your mother or father, you would not tell them to "get over it".


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Macquack said:


> I would not say to someone who got tricked/trapped into a $4 million debt to "get over it". They might turn violent.
> 
> GG, if this happened to your mother or father, you would not tell them to "get over it".




The market is a dangerous place. 

These folk clearly should not have bought this stock.

One cannot legislate to protect the naive in a dangerous place. 

Would the holders of this stock have considered driving a Formula 1 car in a Grand Prix. 

The market is a zero sum game, winners and losers. 

There was ample, even exhaustive warning of the dangers inherent in buying BrisC. at these ridiculously low prices.

They will be a warning to others. 

gg


----------



## drsmith (13 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Macquack said:


> .....if this happened to your mother or father, you would not tell them to "get over it".



It's certainly a somewhat more difficult situation to get over than say a traffic infringement.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I am largely a believer in Caveat Emptor there does need to be a better balance between investment complexity and the target investor than what this offered.

Complex financial structures in what should be basic share market investments is part of what has led the global economy to it's current situation.


----------



## skc (13 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> I have more sympathy for the MQG shareholders, as they are almost certain to have to front up the money for someone else's careless mistake, no matter how much that person feels like they were misled into taking that debt on.




I wouldn't few too bad for MQG... they made a huge mistake in thinking that the bull market will last forever and borrowing to pay dividend during construction is a viable model. They could have easily not take on the underwriter role, or offload/reinsure that risk, but I guess they are too proud and wanted the extra fee too much. Considering this was floated after the subprime cirisis, I say MQG fully deserve to pay up.


----------



## mazzatelli1000 (13 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Do you seriously think that a couple of hints (not layer after layer of hints) is enough to inform people that they are purchasing a huge debt??..
> 
> Why in gods name does it take until you actually hit the buy button for you to only then be told in plain english these are contributing shares??
> 
> ...





Well sitting on the fence I believe both sides are to be at blame here.
On one side they have released the bare minimum of information for the investor to be aware of their obligations, but not doing enough to highlight how large an obligation it is.

On the other hand the investor, seeing 5 letter codes and various other terminolgy that would have differed from the norm, fail to take reasonable action to further investigate.

This is a general view and I cannot know how much actual research you put in blah blah blah

But I do genuinely hope you come out of this okay!!!!

Lessons for the future


----------



## mazzatelli1000 (13 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Orphans can be widowed, its life. Get over it.
> 
> gg




Thats quite harsh

I hope we never cross paths in life, because I wont show you any mercy


----------



## rocket12 (13 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> The market is a dangerous place.
> 
> These folk clearly should not have bought this stock.
> 
> ...




Hehe, my wife makes a good point.  It seems the peeps who know about the 5 letter code are also the ones not blessed with much logic or sense of whats right and wrong.

I'd give up on the car analogies guys.  You sound like one of thes market types who thinks that what they do is beyod normal beings.  I don't see millions of mums and dads trying to drive an F1 car in a grand prix, cause last I checked you need quite a few qualifications to do so, but I do see millions of mums and dads buying shares and making money doing it.  These same mums and dads have been tricked into a lifetime of debt due to meterial non-disclosure.  

Tell me if you can agree that it would be better to inform people via plain text before they hit the buy button rather than after.  Although I have a feeling you keep things just as they are...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Hehe, my wife makes a good point.  It seems the peeps who know about the 5 letter code are also the ones not blessed with much logic or sense of whats right and wrong.
> 
> I'd give up on the car analogies guys.  You sound like one of thes market types who thinks that what they do is beyod normal beings.  I don't see millions of mums and dads trying to drive an F1 car in a grand prix, cause last I checked you need quite a few qualifications to do so, but I do see millions of mums and dads buying shares and making money doing it.  These same mums and dads have been tricked into a lifetime of debt due to meterial non-disclosure.
> 
> Tell me if you can agree that it would be better to inform people via plain text before they hit the buy button rather than after.  Although I have a feeling you keep things just as they are...




On the face of it , it appears reasonable, let these mums and dads as you call them know via email of the dangers.

It then spreads.

An announcement is made as they click the buy button. Should they be allowed buy or warned of the announcement. ??

The rest of us have to put up with mountains of emails warning us of what we already know.

Best leave it as it is. 

They shouldn't be in the market if they don't understand or read the dangers inherent in trading.

They'll be more careful next time.

gg


----------



## rocket12 (13 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> On the face of it , it appears reasonable, let these mums and dads as you call them know via email of the dangers.
> 
> It then spreads.
> 
> ...




Not sure why your talking about emails.  When you buy the shares online there is a buy page (take a look at the screencaps on page 2 of this thread) that tells you how much the trade is going to cost you.  All they have to do is tell you that instead of the trade costing you $2k it's going to cost you $4 million.  I think that might of influenced to not click the buy now button.


----------



## chops_a_must (13 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

My first reaction if buying something with a 5 letter code would be, "why the hell am I buying an option?"

I'm confused as to how people did not investigate further. Surely they would know that these aren't normal shares, and "normal" shares only have 3 letter codes.


----------



## rocket12 (13 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



chops_a_must said:


> My first reaction if buying something with a 5 letter code would be, "why the hell am I buying an option?"
> 
> I'm confused as to how people did not investigate further. Surely they would know that these aren't normal shares, and "normal" shares only have 3 letter codes.




I always thought options (shares that have options) were four letter codes, and in Commsec it states clearly on the main pages of each option that its an option and gives the expiry date.  And when you go to the buy page it tells you its an option and when it's going to expire.  The same should have been done with the Brisconnect shares, giving the dates of the next two installments.

Also when you look up shares in the Age (which is where I initially looked) It just lists them as Brisconnect.  Whereas shares that come with options are listed as options with the expiry date.


----------



## cuttlefish (13 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

The same if you look them up on the ASX site.  Type in BCSCA in the price search field, and no mention is made that its a partly paid securiy in the price results.  Click on the hyperlinked BCSCA stock code in the price results to get company information and it makes no mention that I can see either, and no link to the product disclosure statement either.

Also, even if people were aware they were partly paid, they may have thought the additional instalments were optional.  It is only in the subsections of the PDS that it is made clear that they are not optional.


----------



## rocket12 (13 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> The same if you look them up on the ASX site.  Type in BCSCA in the price search field, and no mention is made that its a partly paid securiy in the price results.  Click on the hyperlinked BCSCA stock code in the price results to get company information and it makes no mention that I can see either, and no link to the product disclosure statement either.
> 
> Also, even if people were aware they were partly paid, they may have thought the additional instalments were optional.  It is only in the subsections of the PDS that it is made clear that they are not optional.




If you do click on the hyperlinks BCSCA code in the price results and then click on "ASX code, security description" drop down menu it does give you "BCSCA, stapled security paid to $1.00 $2.00 unpaid"

This is good and what should be on every page inside the BCSCA research area of every online broker.  If they can do it for options and other variations from normal shares then they should have done it for these contributing shares.


----------



## rocket12 (13 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> I always thought options (shares that have options) were four letter codes, and in Commsec it states clearly on the main pages of each option that its an option and gives the expiry date.  And when you go to the buy page it tells you its an option and when it's going to expire.  The same should have been done with the Brisconnect shares, giving the dates of the next two installments.
> 
> Also when you look up shares in the Age (which is where I initially looked) It just lists them as Brisconnect.  Whereas shares that come with options are listed as options with the expiry date.




Just seen that there are 5 letter options!! (non share options)  For some reason I cant look them up on commsec via their codes...


----------



## Enzyme (14 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

The Eureka report ( http://www.eurekareport.com.au/ ) did a report on Brisconnections this week.  

I will not quote the entire article out of respect for their copyright, but here is a snippit:



> I asked BrisConnections chairman Trevor Rowe whether there is any prospect of improved terms or a change of heart within the BrisConnections team. Rowe says the PDS fully disclosed the terms of the deal. He also says his company must legally make its “best endeavours” to get the money from investors who don’t pay up, and that includes the use of debt collectors.
> 
> But is using debt collectors feasible? Tony Aveling, the chief executive of Collection House, the biggest debt collection agency in Australia, says: “I don't think it is. I just don't think you'd get to collect a lot of money in any exercise to do with BrisConnections."
> 
> I think when you see the chief executive of a debt collection agency publicly shooting down the notion of chasing small shareholders and day traders for instalment dues, not to mention his willingness to turn down potential new business before it even comes to his door, it's safe to say the debt collector route is pie in the sky.


----------



## Sunder (14 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Hehe, my wife makes a good point.  It seems the peeps who know about the 5 letter code are also the ones not blessed with much logic or sense of whats right and wrong.




I think you've hit the nail on the head right there. (I know I said last post, but this really gets my goat) Not that we don't have much logic or a sense of what's right and wrong, but we have a *different*, and I would argue, a more mature logic and sense of right and wrong. 

It is "right" to make sure that kids do not have to bear the full force of their mistakes while they are learning. It is right to make sure that adults do. We have a lower set of expectations for children. For example, when a child plays on railway tracks and gets hit by a train and is injured, we claim more needs to be done to ensure safety, and we talk compensation for "failed safety systems". If an adult does the same, we say "too bad, but he knew the risks when he climbed the fence to get in".

You, presumably, are an adult, yet you want the protection of a learning child, claiming that people did not make you aware of the facts, despite the facts being freely available in many different places. 

You're like the guys in America who sue because Starbucks didn't write "Caution coffee is hot" on the cup. To a reasonable adult, some degree of logic and judgement is assumed. You did not apply this logic and judgement, when you bought a share that is clearly not a normal share.  

I ask you one simple question. Were you intentionally deceived? If not, then Caveat Emptor. The information was out there. There was no hiding the signs if you had known it was there, and if you didn't - the signs were differentiated sufficiently from normal, that a reasonable person would have stopped to check. 

You sir, do have a different sense of logic and moral direction from many of the rest of us - but do not assume it's superior than the other people here. It's clearly failed you and landed you in hot water. Failure is not the mark of superior logic and moral direction. 

My only concession is that the punishment for naivety this time, is disporportionate to the offence. However, being a zero sum game, someone has to pay the piper, and I'd rather it be the one who made the mistake, than anyone else.


----------



## bigdog (14 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

http://www.tradingroom.com.au/apps/qt/quote.ac?code=BCSCA

The Age reports the same:

(BCSCA) BRISCONNECTIONS UNIT TRUSTS
STAPLED SECURITY PAID TO $1.00, $2.00 UNPAID

I simulated buying BCSCA with Westpac Broking; the minimum buy is $500 or 500,000 shares and $1 million to pay!

There was no information about the $2 owing reported by Westpac Broking!


----------



## rocket12 (14 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> I think you've hit the nail on the head right there. (I know I said last post, but this really gets my goat) Not that we don't have much logic or a sense of what's right and wrong, but we have a *different*, and I would argue, a more mature logic and sense of right and wrong.
> 
> It is "right" to make sure that kids do not have to bear the full force of their mistakes while they are learning. It is right to make sure that adults do. We have a lower set of expectations for children. For example, when a child plays on railway tracks and gets hit by a train and is injured, we claim more needs to be done to ensure safety, and we talk compensation for "failed safety systems". If an adult does the same, we say "too bad, but he knew the risks when he climbed the fence to get in".
> 
> ...




Why then are we informed in plain english when buying share  options online that they are options and given the expiry date?  Answer is to protect people from thinking they are buying a normal share.  Zero information was given on the buy page or main research pages of BCSCA.  And thats why I am one of thousands who have fallen for this over the past few months.

With your logic, after this has been sorted out you would keep things the same so that the same thing can happen all over again.

Personally I am going to get out of this OK, so I'm not worried about myself but am sticking up for all the others who have bought this stock.

Seems you like analogies.....If you were waiting at boom gates and entered the train tracks after the boom gates opened and got hit by another train, I would certainly not blame you for not looking.

I make mistakes every day of my life and take full responsibility for them.  But if I've been shafted by someone then thats a different story...


----------



## rocket12 (14 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



bigdog said:


> http://www.tradingroom.com.au/apps/qt/quote.ac?code=BCSCA
> 
> The Age reports the same:
> 
> ...




The Age has done it well...  Confused about the Westpac buy, are you saying they did mention there was $1 million to pay??


----------



## cuttlefish (14 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> I think you've hit the nail on the head right there. (I know I said last post, but this really gets my goat) Not that we don't have much logic or a sense of what's right and wrong, but we have a *different*, and I would argue, a more mature logic and sense of right and wrong.
> 
> It is "right" to make sure that kids do not have to bear the full force of their mistakes while they are learning. It is right to make sure that adults do. We have a lower set of expectations for children. For example, when a child plays on railway tracks and gets hit by a train and is injured, we claim more needs to be done to ensure safety, and we talk compensation for "failed safety systems". If an adult does the same, we say "too bad, but he knew the risks when he climbed the fence to get in".
> 
> ...




Why do we have cooling off periods for property?
Why do we have a 'sophisiticated investor' certification?
Why do we have forms to be completed acknowledging risks and demonstrating basic knowledge before being allowed to trade high risk products like futures and options?

Because adults do require a basic level of protection.

The ASX had a choice - allow brokers to offer online trading and non-advisory discount services or not.   They decided to allow it, it is of significant benefit to them because it has significantly increased the level of market participation.  In offering high risk products they also have a responsibility (in my opinion) to manage the amount of risk that is able to be taken on and a responsibility (in my opinion) to provide fair warning when an excessive amount of risk is being entered into.

I disagree completely with the coffee analogy.  To compare the level of commonsense required to understand the complexities of ASX stock code heiroglyphics to the commonsense required to understand that coffee is hot doesn't make sense to me.

This is more like coffee with 10,000 volts running through one side of the rim of the cup and if you happen to turn it the wrong way and drink from the wrong side you get fried.  (and once you've bought the coffee you're not allowed to throw it in the bin once you realise how dangerous it is because they removed all the bins and glued the cup to your hand).


----------



## rocket12 (14 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

In the Fin review code lookup
(BCSCA)
Ordinary Fully Paid    

What hope have we got when the fin review don't even know what a five letter code is.


----------



## rocket12 (14 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

.....


----------



## bigdog (14 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> The Age has done it well...  Confused about the Westpac buy, are you saying they did mention there was $1 million to pay??




There was no information provided about the $2 owing displayed on during the buy transaction on Westpac Broking!
-- Looked like buying a normal share with three character code


----------



## Sunder (14 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> The ASX had a choice - allow brokers to offer online trading and non-advisory discount services or not.
> 
> This is more like coffee with 10,000 volts running through one side of the rim of the cup and if you happen to turn it the wrong way and drink from the wrong side you get fried.  (and once you've bought the coffee you're not allowed to throw it in the bin once you realise how dangerous it is because they removed all the bins and glued the cup to your hand).




The risk is not inherent in the product. The risk created in this particular market for this particular share, due to the share price falling to such low levels, and the market for it dying. 

Sticking with the coffee cup analogy, it's like saying everyone who buys take away coffee, must undergo strict training, on the possibility that one day, through a manufacturing defect, a cup might be produced that accidentally sticks to your hands, and can give you a fatal 10,000 volt shock. Don't laugh. Considering coffee cups can be made out of stryofoam, static electricity could form, and even mild static shocks to the head can disrupt brain function  

The probability of the BCSCA debacle happening was small, and regulators can't regulate against everything. This is the adult/child world view I have been talking about. Our world is has gone from legislating criminal behaviour, to legislating against negligent behaviour, to legislating against personal responsibility. 

We don't need it, and our world would be much worse for it.


----------



## cuttlefish (14 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> The risk is not inherent in the product. The risk created in this particular market for this particular share, due to the share price falling to such low levels, and the market for it dying.




Of course the risk was in the product.  Thats like saying writing deep in the money put options is not risky because stock prices don't usually fall that much.  Writing deep itm options is highly risky and you have to fill in forms and lodge margin before you are able to do so.

Regulators and the company had a *VERY* simple solution available to them to address the increasing risk of this product.  

They could simply have suspended trading in the stock as the risk began to grow exponentially (Y=1/X where X=shareprice, Y=liability) and the product stopped behaving like a normal garden variety share and started to behave like a highly leveraged extremely risky futures product.


----------



## RodH (14 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I live near the airport in brisbane, and we get a 'community update' newsletter about hte airport link / northern busway etc from brisconnections. 

they interviewed the chief financial officer Nicholas Lattimore:
*Why is the Brisconnections share price so undervalued?*

We are extremely dissapointed with teh current security price. While current global financial market conditions are unfavourable for BrisConnections, the long-term investment opportunity that quality infrastructure presents, has not changed. In time, I am confident the market will recognise the quality and credentials of the Airport Link Motorway project and BrisConnections. 

--
At that point, I was thinking - what a ********, this is getting delivered to everyone in the local community - and he's encouraging them to invest in this. But luckily the next paragraph says:

*How does the installment structure work?*
Basically there hvae been three installments, so after you purchase your securities you then owe two more installments. $1 is due in April 2009 and the other $1 is due in January 2010. This is indicative in our ASX code which is BCSCA, the CA means there are contributing installments to be made.

so he doesn't say it straight out(buy the minimum about of our shares and your f...ed), but gives enough information to sort of warning to what is going to happen. 

I think the whole idea of a contributing installment and the way ASX and the online brokers have handled it is stupid, and needs a re-think. I also think the fact that BrisConnections - being an infrastructure company with funding from the government being a contributing asset is stupid.


----------



## rocket12 (14 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> The risk is not inherent in the product. The risk created in this particular market for this particular share, due to the share price falling to such low levels, and the market for it dying.
> 
> Sticking with the coffee cup analogy, it's like saying everyone who buys take away coffee, must undergo strict training, on the possibility that one day, through a manufacturing defect, a cup might be produced that accidentally sticks to your hands, and can give you a fatal 10,000 volt shock. Don't laugh. Considering coffee cups can be made out of stryofoam, static electricity could form, and even mild static shocks to the head can disrupt brain function
> 
> ...




So the financial review listing it as a fully paid share doesn't register with you?


----------



## Sunder (14 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> So the financial review listing it as a fully paid share doesn't register with you?




I didn't buy BCSCA through the Fin Review. I doubt you did either.


----------



## rocket12 (15 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> I didn't buy BCSCA through the Fin Review. I doubt you did either.




I have a feeling there are more people investing in the market than you and I...


----------



## prawn_86 (15 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

While i can see both sides of the story on this my question is:

Why would anyone buy a stock (contributing or not) that is .001 with a heap of sellers in the queue already....


----------



## rocket12 (15 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



prawn_86 said:


> While i can see both sides of the story on this my question is:
> 
> Why would anyone buy a stock (contributing or not) that is .001 with a heap of sellers in the queue already....




I bought them at .001 but lots of people bought them at .002, .003 etc.  

Speaking for myself I had no problems punting on this one, obviously thinking it was a fully paid share perfectly aware that I may very well lose my 2k investment.  I jumped back into the market early november mainly on blue chippers but a small percentage of my money was put on a spread of penny dreadfuls.  Again it was just a small amount of money that I didn't care if I lost.  Not everyones cup of tea but I was cool with it.


----------



## Enzyme (15 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Brisconnections spreading Christmas cheer with a letter to shareholders:  link

Basically it says "pay up by April 16 or we'll come and get you, and there is no way out other than to sell your shares".

Doesn't mention off-market transfers at all.


----------



## Enzyme (15 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hey Rocket,

Do you know what you are going to do yet?

What does your accountant say?  Can you set up a company and transfer the shares into it and then let it fold when the debt collectors come knocking?


----------



## awg (15 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

interesting solution options posted, re Off-market tx.

1) SMSF...would fall foul of "Sole purpose test".

2) set up company...would this possibly breach various Corporate regulations designed to stop people getting out of debts, acting in good faith etc?

3) transfer to "Streetperson"...whilst morally questionable, funnily enough, I think that may be legally the safest option...if you could find a broken down sick old alcoholic, I feel sure they would welcome a couple thousand$ to do the deed, there would be virtually no chance that the transaction could be reversed. Especially if they signed a stat dec, and were aware Macquarie would pursue the debt later!

all discussion strictly theoretical...not advice...me asking some questions


----------



## rocket12 (15 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Hey Rocket,
> 
> Do you know what you are going to do yet?
> 
> What does your accountant say?  Can you set up a company and transfer the shares into it and then let it fold when the debt collectors come knocking?




I dont have any assets or money so I am OK.  whilst I would love to give them $4 million when they pop over all I will be able to offer them is my shares back a cup off coffee and a chat...

I did talk to some lawers though and seems the best course of action is for as many of the investors to get together and have a joint action.  Slater and Gordon arent doing anything along these lines...


----------



## Sunder (15 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> I have a feeling there are more people investing in the market than you and I...




I can gaurantee you that exactly 0 people bought through Fin Review then? As far as I know, they don't broker shares.


----------



## rocket12 (16 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> I can gaurantee you that exactly 0 people bought through Fin Review then? As far as I know, they don't broker shares.




I thought you were banging on about people not doing enough research.


----------



## thermalmonster (16 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hi
I bought a few shares $500 worth when they were 0.037, so thankfully my Liability with the two installments is $26,000 a drop in the ocean compared to some people.
However it may as well be $10,0000 because I dont have that kind of cash.
I have never invested in shares before. Its only because I work for Thiess who are involved in the project I thought I would chuck $500 at it.

I am so annoyed !!!


----------



## cuttlefish (16 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Thermal - since you say you've never invested in share before I'm curious - did you buy the shares yourself through an online broker (e.g. comsec, etrade etc.) or did you use a broking service to buy them?

If you used an advisory broker then they should have warned you that you were taking on a liability, and if they didn't you might have recourse in that direction.


----------



## rocket12 (16 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> Thermal - since you say you've never invested in share before I'm curious - did you buy the shares yourself through an online broker (e.g. comsec, etrade etc.) or did you use a broking service to buy them?
> 
> If you used an advisory broker then they should have warned you that you were taking on a liability, and if they didn't you might have recourse in that direction.




If he did go down the track your asking him about (your second senario) then he needs to get in touch with S & G, they are taking care of people who went down that road.


----------



## cuttlefish (16 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Doing some research into a gold mining spec - I noticed they at one stage they had contributing shares (CA) and when the calls weren't paid on these the shares were simply forfeited and then auctioned as fully paid shares via public auction.   

So these shares behaved a lot like an option (which was always my understanding of this class of shares which is why I can see how easily people fell into this hole).

Doing some reading I found that one of the features of NL companies ("No Liability") was that investors that held contributing shares were not obliged to pay the amount when called and the only penalty for non-payment was forteiture of the stock. The company I was researching was an NL company.  

As I understand it the NL category for companies has been made obsolete and new companies formed today are all LTD (Limited liability), but there are still a few spec mining companies formed from before the removal of this class that are still trading and active today.   

I found this interesting because it shows that there were a lot of CA class shares issued by NL companies where the calls, when made, weren't a mandatory payment.  Its possible there were investors out there, unaware of the difference between NL and LTD companies, that may have assumed the same applied to the BCSCA class shares.


----------



## lesm (16 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> If he did go down the track your asking him about (your second senario) then he needs to get in touch with S & G, they are taking care of people who went down that road.




Interesting...looks like S&G are taking on the easier of two potential case scenarios.

Sunder,

I think that you will find that one of the points rocket12 has been trying to highlight was that the online brokers should have made it more explict that $2.00 still remained unpaid, so that it was clearer to buyers that there was an outstanding amount still remaining to be paid.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

An interesting aspect of this situation is that except for the IPO and the intial share offering to institutional and retail investors all subsequent transactions have been between buyers and sellers via online or full service brokers and not by BSC or its underwriters.  Where the sellers have effectively transferred their rights, obligations and liabilities to the buyers. 

Neither BSC itself or its underwriters have been a party to these transactions.  If people understand the above paragraph then whose obligation do people consider it should be to advise the buyers of the inherent liability. Put the research and 'caveat emptor' questions aside for the moment.

The brokers are effectively an intermediary bringing two parties together together to effect a transaction. Consider the above in the context of an online (no frills) broker as opposed to a full service (advisory) broker.


----------



## Gundini (16 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



awg said:


> interesting solution options posted, re Off-market tx.
> 
> 3) transfer to "Streetperson"...whilst morally questionable, funnily enough, I think that may be legally the safest option...if you could find a broken down sick old alcoholic, I feel sure they would welcome a couple thousand$ to do the deed, there would be virtually no chance that the transaction could be reversed. Especially if they signed a stat dec, and were aware Macquarie would pursue the debt later!
> 
> all discussion strictly theoretical...not advice...me asking some questions




This is a good suggestion, I would look further into this one.


----------



## Sunder (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



lesm said:


> Interesting...looks like S&G are taking on the easier of two potential case scenarios.
> 
> Sunder,
> 
> I think that you will find that one of the points rocket12 has been trying to highlight was that the online brokers should have made it more explict that $2.00 still remained unpaid, so that it was clearer to buyers that there was an outstanding amount still remaining to be paid.




I understand Rocket's point, I simply don't agree. This is not a single party transaction, such as a speeding fine, where a judge can easily say "Honest mistake, we'll let you off." This is a two party transaction where someone else loses money, if the person who made a mistake - as honest as it has been, is not held to their obligation.

Everyone is saying try to be sympathetic to these buyers. And they probably do deserve some sympathy. But why does nobody feel sympathetic to the people who are hurt if these guys default on their obligations?

I remember during the Thailand riots, there were a whole lot of Australians, who said they were not going to pay their extended hotel bill, since "none of this is our fault". That's "fair enough" from their point of view, but it's not the fault of the hotel either, and they have real costs. Is it fair that they should wear the hotel bill?

Likewise, Macquarie did this one by the book, even if they did charge an exorbitant fee to do it. The brokers did it by the book as well, even if they system "failed" the buyers. 

When "nobody" is at fault, sometimes liability just has to lay where it falls. With the final mistake maker.


----------



## Struzball (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Why doesn't K Rudd buy all the shares?

How much money are we looking at for the entire lot x $1?


----------



## sails (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I can see both sides of the argument here and understand that when one makes a mistake one has to accept the consequenses.  But surely this is really over the top.

I don't understand why the issuers don't create a market for these people to sell - because if they had known this liability existed they wouldn't never have purchased in the first place.  So bcsca, Macquarie and whoever else would not be any worse off.  Instead they are going to throw more money after bad with debt collectors to try and collect from people who can least afford it - probably destroy the lives and families in the process and run the risk of not even getting their debt collection fees returned.  It doesn't make sense.

Even with instalment warrants which are similar in so far as there is more money to be paid at some time in the future.  If that warrant becomes deeply out of the money (explanation : the warrant strike price becomes far above where the share price is trading) and the next instalment is almost due, it appears that the issuers make a market for at least at one tenth of a cent to allow the purchaser to close the position and subsequently dispose of the liability.

So surely it would be better for the underwriters to make a market for these people who have been caught to sell for the minimum price OR allow them to be transferred back to them at no extra cost.  I'm sure most of these hurting bcsca shareholders would be grateful if they only lose their initial investment and be relieved of any further mega liabilities that are totally out of their reach.

As it's been said before, one has to sign some serious documentation stating they fully understand the risks BEFORE being able to trade options or warrants online.  You have to say you have read all the relevant ASX booklets, etc.  And yet they allow this five letter share with far worse liability than one might lose on warrants, long options and option spreads.  Many Oz brokers simply don't allow the selling of uncovered options due to the potential excessive risks.

While the bcsca liability isn't a threat to the broker as in the case of uncovered sold options, surely they still have some duty of care to not allow online trades especially when there are unsufficent funds in the trading account to finance the debt incurred as a result of that trade.  In that case, perhaps a phone trade should be required so that the potential buyer can speak with a broker to ensure that their client has the necessary information.  Or online brokers could add a warning sign stating that there may be further payments and to read and fully understand the relevant PDS before the purchase is committed.

Perhaps there needs to be more investor/trader training before being allowed to trade codes with more than three letters online as currently is the ASX  insists on with options and warrants.

I sincerely hope there is a favourable outcome for those caught in this trap ..

My


----------



## Prospector (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> I can see both sides of the argument here and understand that when one makes a mistake one has to accept the consequenses.  But surely this is really over the top.  I sincerely hope there is a favourable outcome for those caught in this trap ..
> 
> My




Yes, you summed it up beautifully.  The penalty for ignorance, and a small outlay (even as little as $2000) should never bring with it a 2 million $ penalty.


----------



## thermalmonster (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I bought them through Comsec.

As soon as I found out about the 2 further installments I of course Listed them for sale, with the other investors.
I agree with Sail on this.
If there was a market for them we would all sell them

Surley any judge in his right mind will serve the correct justice in this matter.
Obviously if so many people have fell foul of this then proper documentation was not in place.
I also cant understand how you can enter a financial binding arrangement in excess of $1million dollas without signing a single document or having a credit check to see if you are worthy. Talk about Risky Lending!!!!! Isnt this why the Global Financial crisis is upon us??
I wouldnt be able to borrow 10 bucks from commonwealth bank witout at least signing somthing

The whole thing Stinks and its about time someone in the Government stepped up to this and sorted it out.


----------



## cuttlefish (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I ask myself why can't the company just run a public auction/book build process for forfeited stock - just like the old NL companies I spoke about a few posts above used to do on their no obligation contributing (CA) shares - that would probably get the best return for BCS with the least headache.   

But the big difference here is that the BCSCA issue is underwritten - so Macquarie is obliged to meet the full shortfall, and will also acquire as a result the defaulted instalments (which will now be fully paids due to Macquarie meeting the shortfall).

The ironic thing is that the main seller in the market, offloading some 60 
million shares over the past few months, if I've done my figures correctly, was the underwriter, Macquarie.    And Macquarie are allowed under the PDS to take legal action on BCS behalf against holders that forfeit if I've read it correctly.

(ironic is a polite way of expressing what went on here imo).


----------



## rocket12 (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Someone just bought 100,000 of them...  for 100 bucks they now have a 2 hundred thousand liablity...


----------



## cuttlefish (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Why hasn't this stock been suspended after all of this while they sort something out to make an orderly market?!?   Clearly at the moment it is NOT an orderly market.    

I don't understand why this situation is allowed to continue, but on the other hand if you try to buy a low liquidity stock on market when the offer side of the spread is greater than 10% above the last sale price you are prevented from doing so because it moves the price too much.


----------



## Justthinkin (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I'm not quite up to date with this debacle but the gist I think is for cents I can buy a mountain of shares but also a complimentary liability. I understand everybody who has subscribed has done their butts!. So far so good??

It seems to me then someone is going to financially suffer...If I was a large holder I'd rather the company and its lenders to hurt rather than me personally. Therefore why wouldn't you just muster up a lot of shareholders who have everything to lose and nothing (as in zero) to gain and conduct an EGM and change the constitution or whatever other instrument needs changing so that the liabilitity is waived?

Everybody gets to be the proud owner of a piece of rubbish.

This would I (if plausible and successful) give rise to some really interesting discsussions about placement fees and underwriting fees if presumably the company was placed into receivership or liquidation. MacBanks creativity would surely be on stage...

I am not a lawyer and this is simply the rantings of someone who does not have a mountain of these shares or gives a damm about the liability.


----------



## cuttlefish (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Justthinkin said:


> I'm not quite up to date with this debacle but the gist I think is for cents I can buy a mountain of shares but also a complimentary liability. I understand everybody who has subscribed has done their butts!. So far so good??
> 
> It seems to me then someone is going to financially suffer...If I was a large holder I'd rather the company and its lenders to hurt rather than me personally. Therefore why wouldn't you just muster up a lot of shareholders who have everything to lose and nothing (as in zero) to gain and conduct an EGM and change the constitution or whatever other instrument needs changing so that the liabilitity is waived?
> 
> ...




Thats a very interesting suggestion.   In fact its quite possible some of the institutional holders aren't that keen on paying the subsequent installments any more either, and would also come to the party alongside the smaller shareholders.    After all - its the shareholders company, not the directors.

I mean I doubt Macquarie is interested fulfilling the underwriting agreement either if they can avoid it - sounds like everyone would be happy to walk away from the whole thing right now - so they probably woudn't complain either if a majority of shareholders decided to can the whole thing.  (All opinion and I'm only speculating of course).


----------



## Sunder (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> I ask myself why can't the company just run a public auction/book build process for forfeited stock - just like the old NL companies I spoke about a few posts above used to do on their no obligation contributing (CA) shares - that would probably get the best return for BCS with the least headache.




With the share price effectively zero, isn't this the same as issuing more stock, but with only $2 owing? 

I think the reason why, is because after the 2nd installment is paid, the shares will be worth less than $1.001c, which is effectively the market writing off the entire project.

Easier to go underwriter option, than raise more funds option - and the underwriter isnt' going to let the debt go that easily. What was the average Australian net worth? Just under 300k right? So if a share holder owed $500k, even though you can't take the work tools, and can only caveat the family home, there's still a good chance of a decent recovery rate for these debts.


----------



## Sunder (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> Thats a very interesting suggestion.   In fact its quite possible some of the institutional holders aren't that keen on paying the subsequent installments any more either,




That is an interesting suggestion. As long as Brisconnection also waived their right to build the road, then the only people who have lost - are those who have already lost their money (i.e. sold their IPO shares on the way down).

Tax payers will still get a road funded by some other company, Macquarie is no longer obligated to underwrite the project, so their shareholders are safe, and well, money lost already gone anyway. 

What happens to the funds still in the company? If I understand it, they're still holding about half the cash raised.

Edit: Just another mischevious thought - what if you could just buy enough shares at 0.1 cent, to get the company to pay you the rest of the remaining cash, and then shut down the company? As a shareholder, and not even a director, you would have not signed any director's gaurantees for anything.


----------



## cuttlefish (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



> Edit: Just another mischevious thought - what if you could just buy enough shares at 0.1 cent, to get the company to pay you the rest of the remaining cash, and then shut down the company? As a shareholder, and not even a director, you would have not signed any director's gaurantees for anything.



haha - there's an interesting thought - far fetched as you imply, given they'd have likely already entered enough contractually binding commercial obligations with suppliers to cover the bulk of the funds they hold, if not more. 

Also of course the legality of varying/waivering the instalment payments would have to be assessed - particularly if it effectively made the company insolvent by removing their primary future income source.   

There's about 390 million units on issue.

I wonder if the units even have any voting rights attached to them anyway - as they are not ordinary shares they may not.


----------



## thermalmonster (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Anyone Know a recent bankrupt who is willing to by all our shares?
If one single person bought or got transfered the shares for $1
He/She could become a BCSCA Marta  kind of save us all.
What if we all got together and formed a charity?
There must be some decent loop hole for crikey sake!


----------



## Prospector (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> However it may as well be $10,0000 because I dont have that kind of cash.
> I have never invested in shares before. Its only because I work for Thiess who are involved in the project I thought I would chuck $500 at it.




I wonder how many people have bought these and still dont know about their liability.  Did anyone at Thiess promote that you should buy these?


----------



## numbercruncher (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

You need a good samaritan to go start a limited liability company and snap them all up ..... or even someone prepared to thrash a smsf ? 

This whole debacle will surely spark a change in the rules ?


----------



## James Austin (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

rocket,

you may have already answered this,

but what was your thinking when u purchased at .001c and saw *no buyers* in the market depth?

i assume you viewed the depth prior to purchase as implied by your post 27. on pg2.

thanks
James


----------



## rocket12 (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



James Austin said:


> rocket,
> 
> you may have already answered this,
> 
> ...




I bought them in early november when there were still plenty of buyers at 1c.  I jumped in the queue and waited a few days to get them...I knew they werent bhp but was perfectly fine having a gamble with a couple of K and had no probs if I lost the money.


----------



## drsmith (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> I bought them in early november when there were still plenty of buyers at 1c.  I jumped in the queue and waited a few days to get them...I knew they werent bhp but was perfectly fine having a gamble with a couple of K and had no probs if I lost the money.



If you have not done so all ready plonk them in the sell queue at 0.1c.

While there''s a lot there and you would enter at the back of the list, you never know your luck. If enough fools (or a big one) comes to the party, use the proceeds to purchase a lotto ticket. You might just win lotto twice in one year.


----------



## Enzyme (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I've been looking at the PDS, and wonder if I might have found an angle for the lawyers to pursue:

The BrisConnections PDS does not adequatly inform investors about the potential risks in investing in the company.  As Briscon have misinformed investors through the PDS, they can't then use the provisions described in that PDS to take debt recovery action against shareholders.

Now the PDS does talk about risk.  There are five pages of it listing bad things that could happen that would adversely affect the share price.  But the PDS always assumes that there is a share price.  That is where it fails.  Events have shown that the is no share price for Brisconnections shares.  Most shareholders would gladly give their shares away, or pay to get rid of them.  Brisconnections represents a failure of the market for investors, and the PDS did not warn of this possible risk.

Does anyone think that this line of argument has a future?


----------



## cuttlefish (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> I've been looking at the PDS, and wonder if I might have found an angle for the lawyers to pursue:
> 
> The BrisConnections PDS does not adequatly inform investors about the potential risks in investing in the company.  As Briscon have misinformed investors through the PDS, they can't then use the provisions described in that PDS to take debt recovery action against shareholders.
> 
> ...




Sounds reasonable to me - but I'm no lawyer .  

 I also noticed on the ASX site when it talks about the risks of investing in shares it never talks about this one either.  Its kind of a significant one you'd think. 

In fact - this is the pithy three liner that the ASX provides for investors under the risks part of their 'what are shares' page - quite pathetic really (see below).   Ultimately it is the ASX that provides the mechanism whereby these highly risky instruments can be exchanged.

_Although the sharemarket historically has outperformed other investments over the long term, the market can experience volatility in the short term. Individual stock prices can go down as well as up. It is important to monitor your shares' performance, and to regularly re-evaluate whether they continue to be a good investment for you. You can learn how to do this by completing an online class or by talking to a broker._


----------



## Enzyme (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> I wonder if the units even have any voting rights attached to them anyway - as they are not ordinary shares they may not.



I just checked.  They do have voting rights.

If brisconnections were coming after me and my life's savings I'd seriously consider launching a pre-emptive strike against them and their underwriters.  For somewhere between $100k and $300k you could take over the company and wind it up.  If you were lucky you might just manage to avoid bankruptcy.  If not then at least you could have the satisfaction of causing maximum damage to the company and the underwriters that bankrupted you.


----------



## drsmith (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Does anyone think that this line of argument has a future?



If the lack of a market for the shares is listed as a risk then no.

Further to my comment above, everyone holding this should consider placing a sell order for 0.1c. It's a long shot but if Macquarie can see an opportunity to mop most of them up for a token amount you never know. It might be the easiest way out for them too.


----------



## mazzatelli1000 (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Someone just bought 100,000 of them...  for 100 bucks they now have a 2 hundred thousand liablity...




WTF is this???

One would think with this debacle --- they would put up a clearer warnings

Surely these guys (Bris and Macq) aren't relying on taking assets from these unsuspecting punters to raise some money

Tough situation


----------



## cuttlefish (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



			
				cuttlefish said:
			
		

> In fact - this is the pithy three liner that the ASX provides for investors under the risks part of their 'what are shares' page - quite pathetic really (see below). Ultimately it is the ASX that provides the mechanism whereby these highly risky instruments can be exchanged.




Though to add to that, when I went through the online beginners to shares course that was linked to in that risk section, it does cover the types of shares and in particular mentions contributing shares with these comments:

_ Contributing shares

    * partly paid
    * require certain future payments at certain future dates
    * shareholders are obliged to pay outstanding capital when due, unless the company is a no liability company in which case shares can be forfeited instead_


----------



## Enzyme (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



drsmith said:


> If the lack of a market for the shares is listed as a risk then no.



It isn't listed as a risk, which is why I'm speculating shareholders could use it as a defence.



drsmith said:


> Further to my comment above, everyone holding this should consider placing a sell order for 0.1c. It's a long shot but if Macquarie can see an opportunity to mop most of them up for a token amount you never know. It might be the easiest way out for them too.



At one stage there was about a third of all stock on issue listed for sale.  Mostly at $0.001.

I think all eyes do need to look to the underwriters, because they are the ones who will eventually take ownership of all those toxic shares.  The question being, will they take on all the shares before or after the mum & dads have been bankrupted.

As I've been browsing the PDS tonight, for reference the underwriters sharing the exposure are as follows:

– Macquarie Capital Advisers: 41.7%;
– Deutsche Bank: 41.7%;
– Credit Suisse (Australia): 8.3%; and
– J.P. Morgan Australia: 8.3%.


----------



## drsmith (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> It isn't listed as a risk, which is why I'm speculating shareholders could use it as a defence.



Is there any (even a generic comment) about share market risk ?


----------



## cuttlefish (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> I just checked.  They do have voting rights.
> 
> If brisconnections were coming after me and my life's savings I'd seriously consider launching a pre-emptive strike against them and their underwriters.  For somewhere between $100k and $300k you could take over the company and wind it up.  If you were lucky you might just manage to avoid bankruptcy.  If not then at least you could have the satisfaction of causing maximum damage to the company and the underwriters that bankrupted you.




Interesting thought - would certainly be a ballsy approach - would require a lot of planning and analysis in conjunction with corporate lawyers, accountants etc. - and the other risk is not managing to get control after launching the 'attack' and just ending up with even more debt.

But ... if all the BCS shareholders all got together, formed a Pty Ltd,  Funded it pro-rata based on their current shareholdings with enough funds (say $500k) to cover the on-market purchase of stock as well as to cover some legal fee's, they could then run the on-market purchase of the stock that is there on the offer - which would mean a perfectly legal exit for all of the individuals concerned - an on-market transaction.  Then they could attempt, via the safety of pty ltd vehicle, to use their voting rights to call an EGM,  throw out the current board, put their own board in place, and wind up BCS.  (not sure if any of this is remotely possible - this is just thoughts and idle speculation).

The ironic thing is the underwriters and other corporate shareholders may possibly even be supportive of such a move ... who knows ... I mean I just can't imagine Macquarie and the other underwriters are thrilled with the prospect of having to pay for and own these as a result of the underwriting agreement - otherwise why would they have been selling them on-market for a pittance for the past few months.


----------



## Enzyme (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



drsmith said:


> Is there any (even a generic comment) about share market risk ?



There is lots about share market risk in general, and factors that could affect the share price.  But it always assume there is a share price, and shareholders could sell.  But as we know, shareholders can't give the stuff away, and there is nothing in there about that.


----------



## Enzyme (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> Interesting thought - would certainly be a ballsy approach - would require a lot of planning and analysis in conjunction with corporate lawyers, accountants etc. - and the other risk is not managing to get control after launching the 'attack' and just ending up with even more debt.
> 
> But ... if all the BCS shareholders all got together, formed a Pty Ltd,  Funded it pro-rata based on their current shareholdings with enough funds (say $500k) to cover the on-market purchase of stock as well as to cover some legal fee's, they could then run the on-market purchase of the stock that is there on the offer - which would mean a perfectly legal exit for all of the individuals concerned - an on-market transaction.  Then they could attempt, via the safety of pty ltd vehicle, to use their voting rights to call an EGM,  throw out the current board, put their own board in place, and wind up BCS.  (not sure if any of this is remotely possible - this is just thoughts and idle speculation).
> 
> The ironic thing is the underwriters and other corporate shareholders may possibly even be supportive of such a move ... who knows ... I mean I just can't imagine Macquarie and the other underwriters are thrilled with the prospect of having to pay for and own these as a result of the underwriting agreement - otherwise why would they have been selling them on-market for a pittance for the past few months.




You seem to know a lot more about how it would work than I do.  I have no idea if it would be possible to wind up the company, but I'd give it a go.  I was more just thinking in general terms that there is no difference in being bankrupted for $3 million or $300 million.  If I was going down then I'd take as many down of them with me as I could.


----------



## drsmith (17 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> There is lots about share market risk in general, and factors that could affect the share price.  But it always assume there is a share price, and shareholders could sell.  But as we know, shareholders can't give the stuff away, and there is nothing in there about that.



I note the following under section 6.8: General Risks.

_Changes in the general level of prices on local and
international share markets and general investor sentiment
in these markets_

A Lawyer on behalf of the underwriters could argue that the lack of a market for the shares is a product of general investor sentiment. This may or may not be a successful argument but it illustrates the kind of argument shareholders would be up against.


----------



## lesm (18 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Someone just bought 100,000 of them...  for 100 bucks they now have a 2 hundred thousand liablity...





According to the 'Course of Sales' there were actually three buy trades of 71,000, 20,000 and 9,000 shares respectively.


----------



## lesm (18 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> I've been looking at the PDS, and wonder if I might have found an angle for the lawyers to pursue:
> 
> The BrisConnections PDS does not adequatly inform investors about the potential risks in investing in the company.  As Briscon have misinformed investors through the PDS, they can't then use the provisions described in that PDS to take debt recovery action against shareholders.
> 
> ...




Not really. There is actually a share price of 0.001c, an abundance of sellers and a limited number of (or zero) buyers.

Events have certainly had an adverse affect on the share price. In reality, why is this any different to any other stock that becomes illiquid and market sentiment has become adverse?

Has the company itself failed or showed any signs of failing?

What control does this or any company have over general market risk or the market itself?


----------



## thermalmonster (18 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

What do you think is likely to happen The day after the $1.00 is paid

Would the shares be worth $1.001
Perhaps then you could sell them for 0.98 or somthing.
Thats if you have the cash to front the installment.
What if you dont pay on the exact day, but sell your shares the day after when they are worth somthing???
Or will they block you from selling them after the Call up day.


----------



## skc (18 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> What do you think is likely to happen The day after the $1.00 is paid
> 
> Would the shares be worth $1.001
> Perhaps then you could sell them for 0.98 or somthing.
> ...




The share would not worth $1.001 after the second installment is paid. Chances are, it will still has ask of $0.001 again with no buyers.

The shares are probably worth ~20-30% of the $3 total price, or ~$0.6-0.9. Not a lot of science behind the number, but just base it on where RCY (another Brisbane toll road under construction with similar structure) is trading.

There may be some marketable price after the 3rd installment is paid, however. So those who think they owe $2 per share would probably get some back in equity value eventually.


----------



## Bushie (18 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I have followed the threads from Rocket 12 & Cuttlefish, I too, am caught up in the 'debt trap' of Brisconnections.
We are terrified of the impending threats of being 'pursued' to pay a debt that is so unreal that I feel we are living a nightmare. Thankfully ASIC & the Australian Shareholders Association have gone in to bat for us 'little people'. I have also gone to our State Member of Parliament, & our Federal Member of Parliament, they are now becoming aware of the problem. It may be suggested that anyone else (Rocket 12) who is in the same bind do the same thing.  I agree that together we have a louder voice than if we are fighting this individually. The thought of becoming homeless & bankrupt in this economic climate is horrific, all through a click of a mouse, with no warnings out there in Google Finance, the news links from that website, Netwealth where I looked, & to add insult to injury, the Brisconnections website was very difficult to download, it froze my computer on more than one occasion. How can one access the information that is supposed to be 'out there' when the page won't load up?


----------



## rocket12 (18 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Bushie said:


> I have followed the threads from Rocket 12 & Cuttlefish, I too, am caught up in the 'debt trap' of Brisconnections.
> We are terrified of the impending threats of being 'pursued' to pay a debt that is so unreal that I feel we are living a nightmare. Thankfully ASIC & the Australian Shareholders Association have gone in to bat for us 'little people'. I have also gone to our State Member of Parliament, & our Federal Member of Parliament, they are now becoming aware of the problem. It may be suggested that anyone else (Rocket 12) who is in the same bind do the same thing.  I agree that together we have a louder voice than if we are fighting this individually. The thought of becoming homeless & bankrupt in this economic climate is horrific, all through a click of a mouse, with no warnings out there in Google Finance, the news links from that website, Netwealth where I looked, & to add insult to injury, the Brisconnections website was very difficult to download, it froze my computer on more than one occasion. How can one access the information that is supposed to be 'out there' when the page won't load up?




Keep your chin up Bushie, I am confident this will work out.  Have you joined the ASA ?? they are doing a great job with this.  

In the new year we will have to get as many of us together to join a class action.  There is definately a case for material non-disclosure.  I have talked to many lawers, but dont wish to engage anyone on my own as I dont really have anything to lose out of this as I have no money or assets.  But I would love to be part of a legal fight with as many of us as possible.  

There are already four of us in this thread that are in the same boat.  I am in Victoria, which state are you in??


----------



## Bushie (18 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hi Rocket12, we are in country Qld. Yes I have been in contact with Stuart from Aust Shareholders Assoc. he has kept us sort of in the loop. No newspapers covering anything out here, it seems so surreal except for the heart palpitations, the shakes, the tears, the gut pain & the FEAR.  We currently stand to lose our daughters inheritance & end up homeless, (Our only decent asset is a half built house out in the bush, but its is our labour of love & our banks.) we are quite frankly terrified.  All we were trying to do was create a dividend income stream for our retirement years, with a purchase of 'cheap' shares in a tunnel project in Bris. We didn't know anything about contributing shares, didn't see anything wherever we looked, had only dabbled this year in small caps, in small parcels of $500 & $1000 whenever we could afford it. I have noticed a lot of hard responses from some in this thread, I guess they are feeling quite comfortable & superior. I wonder for a moment if they know the pain of a mistake that took a minute to do, but could destroy their lives forever? Every day my mind wanders to "what will we do?" "Where will we go?"
"how will we live?" " How long can we stay here?" This whole debt trap is WRONG - WRONG - WRONG. It can't be real.


----------



## thermalmonster (18 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I think we all need to stand united in this.
There are a few of us at work also that wish to join the "action Group"
We cant all be wrong
I spoke to the asac yesterday of my plight and they are looking at upping the publicity on this after christmas.
I would like to see an action Plan of what we are going to do and work on it.
Lets get in touch with each other via e-mail and work out our strategy.
Are we in?


----------



## cuttlefish (18 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



			
				Bushie said:
			
		

> I have followed the threads from Rocket 12 & Cuttlefish, I too, am caught up in the 'debt trap' of Brisconnections.



Just in case there's any confusion - I don't hold BCSCA - but I do strongly feel that the situation was an easy trap to fall into and that a risky product like this should have better controls around it, which is why I've been posting in the thread a lot.

I have tried to imagine how I'd feel if I were facing the situation that the shareholders do face and it is a very scary thought and I can understand bushies comment about the situation being surreal.

It still astounds me that this land mine is sitting there on the market, not suspended, waiting for an unassuming victim to buy another $500 of stock and assume $1 miillion dollars worth of nightmare.   

Why this stock hasn't been suspended is beyond me.

I just hope that everyone in the situation of owning the stock doesn't blame themselves too heavily and manages to cope with the situation they are in.

I'd also hope that the companies involved (BCS, the underwriters, the ASX) show some commonsense and compassion, and work to find a practical solution that doesn't punish people disproportionately for such a simple oversight.


----------



## sails (18 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Bushie said:


> ... I have noticed a lot of hard responses from some in this thread, I guess they are feeling quite comfortable & superior. I wonder for a moment if they know the pain of a mistake that took a minute to do, but could destroy their lives forever? ....




Hey Bushie - there will always be differing opinions on a forum like this - that's what it's all about.  But there are some of us who sincerely hope for a good outcome for those trapped in this extraordinary situation.


----------



## rocket12 (18 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> I think we all need to stand united in this.
> There are a few of us at work also that wish to join the "action Group"
> We cant all be wrong
> I spoke to the asac yesterday of my plight and they are looking at upping the publicity on this after christmas.
> ...




I have private messaged both you and Bushie, so you both have my email addy...


----------



## Prospector (18 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I have been sharing this thread with my family in absolute horror about how easily people have become enmeshed in this.  And sometimes I think that there but for the grace of god go I!. Not that he/she delivers me any favours, it is just the meaning of the saying. My fervent wish for all of you who are trapped at the moment is that come the New Year, there will be a good solution for you.  I think there will be, but I really do feel for you while things get themselves sorted.  Ignore those who are not offering you support, I am a great believer in Karma.  All the best!


----------



## ROE (18 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

who is here facing bankruptcy due to this scenario.

I say we all ASF if you willing can buy small parcel of these guys and help them out...and their families.

say someone with 500,000 shares we can each take a thousand each
and cope up the the installment...and that would be our xmas present to them.

say if we have 1000 taker then it's only 500 shares each and it's a $1000 bucks to help some desperate family out.


----------



## cuttlefish (18 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



ROE said:


> who is here facing bankruptcy due to this scenario.
> 
> I say we all ASF if you willing can buy small parcel of these guys and help them out...and their families.
> 
> ...




I like the sentiment involved - but be careful with your numbers there.

1000 takers will only fund 500,000 shares installment payments.  Also be careful or you might end up confusing someone who will buy a $500 parcel on market and end up with $1,000,000 (one million$$$) debt.  

If we base it around the 100 million shares in the sell queue - the amount that would have to be raised to bail all the shareholders out is $200 million.  That is a lot of money for a forum to raise, and all of it would go to BCS.

Its a great idea but its not practical because the numbers are too large.

If there are 1000 users on ASF that participate it would amount to $200,000 each - and that money would go to BCS.


----------



## prawn_86 (18 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

As with cuttlefish, i like ROEs idea, but it isn't really feasible.

I cant remember who said it, but to me, the best sounding option is getting some generous sole, who has no intention of being a company director in the future, to start a limited liability co, do a heap of off market buying of all those here at ASF and then declare the company bankrupt.

Perhaps one of you holders could look into doing that, or getting a friend to do it...


----------



## doctorj (18 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

If people want to help those suffering through all this, donations for legal fees would probably be the best use of funds, rather than sharing the BCS liability.


----------



## Julia (18 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> Hey Bushie - there will always be differing opinions on a forum like this - that's what it's all about.  But there are some of us who sincerely hope for a good outcome for those trapped in this extraordinary situation.






Prospector said:


> I have been sharing this thread with my family in absolute horror about how easily people have become enmeshed in this.  And sometimes I think that there but for the grace of god go I!. Not that he/she delivers me any favours, it is just the meaning of the saying. My fervent wish for all of you who are trapped at the moment is that come the New Year, there will be a good solution for you.  I think there will be, but I really do feel for you while things get themselves sorted.  Ignore those who are not offering you support, I am a great believer in Karma.  All the best!




Bushie, I echo what Sails and Prospector have said above.   I can't begin to imagine how frightening your situation must be.

However, I just can't see that it would be cost effective for Macquarie etc to pursue all the small holders, many of whom will have nothing to sell.  I'd guess that as underwriters they'll just have to fulfil their obligations.

The situation is not too dissimilar to Storm Financial.  Slater and Gordon appear to be onto this.

Bushie, I guess all you can do at this stage is follow the advice of the ASA who clearly are not going to give up on this. 

And ignore the remarks of those ASF members who probably need to make themselves feel good by criticising others.  As Prospector said, there is eventually karma.


----------



## thermalmonster (19 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Does anyone have any Idea of the Number of shareholders that are affected by this.?


----------



## rocket12 (19 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> Does anyone have any Idea of the Number of shareholders that are affected by this.?





There would be a few hundred of us.  Check your private messages then email me if you want to join in.


----------



## Enzyme (19 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

It is hard to say.

I think it is possible to request a copy of the shareholders registry from the Brisconnections.  That would give you a list of their shareholders with their contact details.  That might be worthwhile, as you could arrange a mailout to get in contact with all shareholders and try to coordinate a response.

I do think there are a lot of people affected.  I've read that in November, 80% of all stock on issue changed hands.  That was a mass transfer of shares from the big institutional investors to small retail investors.


----------



## Julia (19 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Rocket, would it be a better option to check with, e.g. Slater and Gordon, or one of the other legal firms who are known for this sort of action, see if they're up for it, and get them to do the publicity?  What do the ASA advise?


----------



## rocket12 (19 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> Rocket, would it be a better option to check with, e.g. Slater and Gordon, or one of the other legal firms who are known for this sort of action, see if they're up for it, and get them to do the publicity?  What do the ASA advise?




S & G only sue people, we need to prove we dont have a liability.  I have discussed with several lawers who feel confident about this but I don't want to go the expense on my own.  I have contacted Maurice Blackburn but they are taking their time getting back to me.


----------



## Sunder (19 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> It still astounds me that this land mine is sitting there on the market, not suspended, waiting for an unassuming victim to buy another $500 of stock and assume $1 miillion dollars worth of nightmare.
> 
> Why this stock hasn't been suspended is beyond me.




Probably because of one or more of the following:

1. Suspending the stock solely for that reason is a tacit admission that regulations were inadequate. Either they're not willing to admit that, or they don't think so. 

2. Suspending it means that the sellers are even more stuck, and may sue ASIC for suspending trade on a "viable" stock.

3. ASIC does not have the legislated authority to suspend trading on a stock for this particular reason.

4. ASIC believe this is a small, uneductaed investor problem, and does not believe affecting the whole market for this share is an effective method of dealing with the problem.


----------



## cuttlefish (19 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Probably because of one or more of the following:
> 
> 1. Suspending the stock solely for that reason is a tacit admission that regulations were inadequate. Either they're not willing to admit that, or they don't think so.
> 
> ...




The ASX is within its rights to suspend a stock if the believe they need to do so in order to prevent a disorderly market.   With 100 million shares on the offer, and zero shares on the bid, and the stock sitting at the lowest possible price increment of .001, and with $2 still owing on the stock, I would have thought there is a strong argument that proper price discovery is not possible at the moment in this stock at this price point and thus there is not an orderly market.

They would really need to allow the stock to trade at a negative price in order to create an environment that would allow true price discovery in my opinion.

My understanding is that suspension of a stock is within the ASX's regulatory domain (i.e. they don't need ASIC involvement). 

It is also possible for a company to request that their stock be suspended, so there is also no reason why BCS can't request a suspension as well.


----------



## rocket12 (19 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> The ASX is within its rights to suspend a stock if the believe they need to do so in order to prevent a disorderly market.   With 100 million shares on the offer, and zero shares on the bid, and the stock sitting at the lowest possible price increment of .001, and with $2 still owing on the stock, I would have thought there is a strong argument that proper price discovery is not possible at the moment in this stock at this price point and thus there is not an orderly market.
> 
> They would really need to allow the stock to trade at a negative price in order to create an environment that would allow true price discovery in my opinion.
> 
> ...





Have to agree with Sunders first 3 points. The stock cant be suspended, would open up an even bigger can of worms.


----------



## Cobber (20 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Not sure why your talking about emails.  When you buy the shares online there is a buy page (take a look at the screencaps on page 2 of this thread) that tells you how much the trade is going to cost you.  All they have to do is tell you that instead of the trade costing you $2k it's going to cost you $4 million.  I think that might of influenced to not click the buy now button.




I agree with this.  Most things these days when you sign up online come with a box saying to read the terms and conditions and then you wither agree or don't agree.  If this was done all of the problems would be solvered.


----------



## Cobber (20 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> I bought them through Comsec.
> 
> As soon as I found out about the 2 further installments I of course Listed them for sale, with the other investors.
> I agree with Sail on this.
> ...





I've done exactly the same as you.  I had no idea what I was in for until I received a letter saying thank you for becoming apart of this.  I would have thought I would have to sign a legally binding document.  Surely they are just going to end up chasing more and more people who can't meet their demands and they will fall flat on their face with no money.


----------



## Cobber (20 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hi All

I have read through a lot of this stuff and I'm a bit confused as to what is being done to resolve the issue. Are we all just talking around in circles responding to each other or is someone taking control and going forth with ideas.  I am one of those fools that got trapped.  I have very little knowledge of the market but got put on to etrade a few yrs ago by a friend.  I thought buying shares for 0.001 at a minimum trade of $500 posed little risk and maybe I could double my money to help pay off my credit card. There were plenty of shares being bought and sold at the time.  I have only just discovered what I got myself into once a letter arrived thanking me for becoming apart of Brisconnections and then it outlined my next obligations.  Now the nightmare has begun.  The true reality hit when I discovered these are speciality shares that etrade is not allowing to be traded online but only over the phone via manual order.  I have busted my balls for years trying to keep my head above water with my home loan.  I can't stand the thought of losing my home that I have worked so hard for.  what can we do... I need help!  I wouldn't have thought chasing petty people like me would be worth Macs efforts.  I also can't believe I can get my self into something so legally binding without signing and agreeing to terms and conditions.  There aren't many things you can do without signing for, so how can one get themselves into a situation of owing millions of dollars without signing for it.


----------



## Julia (20 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Cobber said:


> Hi All
> 
> The true reality hit when I discovered these are speciality shares that etrade is not allowing to be traded online but only over the phone via manual order.



I was surprised to read this so have just done a Buy order (without of course taking the last step) and there wasn't any indication that the usual online order wasn't OK.
Where did you get the info that you could only place phone order?

Btw, there's an article in today's Courier Mail (Brisbane) that the Brisconnections work is going ahead.


----------



## rocket12 (20 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Cobber said:


> Hi All
> 
> I have read through a lot of this stuff and I'm a bit confused as to what is being done to resolve the issue. Are we all just talking around in circles responding to each other or is someone taking control and going forth with ideas.  I am one of those fools that got trapped.  I have very little knowledge of the market but got put on to etrade a few yrs ago by a friend.  I thought buying shares for 0.001 at a minimum trade of $500 posed little risk and maybe I could double my money to help pay off my credit card. There were plenty of shares being bought and sold at the time.  I have only just discovered what I got myself into once a letter arrived thanking me for becoming apart of Brisconnections and then it outlined my next obligations.  Now the nightmare has begun.  The true reality hit when I discovered these are speciality shares that etrade is not allowing to be traded online but only over the phone via manual order.  I have busted my balls for years trying to keep my head above water with my home loan.  I can't stand the thought of losing my home that I have worked so hard for.  what can we do... I need help!  I wouldn't have thought chasing petty people like me would be worth Macs efforts.  I also can't believe I can get my self into something so legally binding without signing and agreeing to terms and conditions.  There aren't many things you can do without signing for, so how can one get themselves into a situation of owing millions of dollars without signing for it.




Hi, send me a private message by clicking on my profile name and give me your email address, we are getting of many of us together who have been trapped this way.  In the new year when the lawyers are back at work we will look at a group action.

Did you buy the shares online with edtrade?


----------



## Prospector (20 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hey Julia, you were braver than me - I didnt trust my touchpad not to ping off a trade.

We are trying to get our minds around the liability that people are now under.  For someone who purchased $500 worth of shares, exactly what is the debt you are now looking at?

I cant believe there is no warning; NAB online warns you that shares you are about to purchase are ex-dividend, how can they possibly not warn people that buying these shares creates a liability?

Once again, I am hoping for an excellent outcome for you all; it beggars belief that someone is not doing something about this situation.  I cannot imagine that this could possibly be enforced.  All the best.


----------



## rocket12 (20 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> Hey Julia, you were braver than me - I didnt trust my touchpad not to ping off a trade.
> 
> We are trying to get our minds around the liability that people are now under.  For someone who purchased $500 worth of shares, exactly what is the debt you are now looking at?
> 
> ...




A $500 purchase will give you a total 1 million dollar debt.  Someone bought $100 worth during the week, which will give them a 2 hundred thousand debt.

I think when you see it with your own eyes as you have done with NAB online and via the screencaps I have shown, anybody with a morsel of an idea as to whats right and wrong can see that this is just too rediculous to be true.  As Bushie mentioned it's actually surreal to hear Trevor Rowe stating categorically that they are going to pursue this all the way...I just hope and pray to wake up one morning to news that they have come to their senses and I can started living again...


----------



## Sunder (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> As Bushie mentioned it's actually surreal to hear Trevor Rowe stating categorically that they are going to pursue this all the way...




Think outside your own shoes for a moment and ask what options he has?

1. He doesn't pursue the debt. Macquarie is then excused from their liabilities, and the government sues Brisconnections because no road was built. Likely shareholders who were intending to come good on their portion will also sue him for wiping out their company. 

2. He only selectively pursues the debt for people likely to have more money than the costs it to recover it. It only costs a couple hundred dollars to send a debt collector, and I was told around $10k to take it "to the end". (All the way through the courts) Do you seriously think most people who trade shares have less than $10,001 of recoverable assets? If Macquarie can assert that "all avenues" were not exhausted in attempting to recover the money, they refuse to pay out that part of the claim, and we have a smaller version of scenario 1. 

3. He does everything by the book, recovers money from those who have it, damages the credit rating of those that don't (possibly to the point of requiring bankruptcy protection), and Macquarie pays the rest. His company goes through smooth sailing, he gets his multi-million dollar bonuses for getting the road get built on time, and he can, in clear conscience say that it's not his fault that people made mistakes on his company's issues. 

This is ugly. Very ugly. But if you were him, which would you take?


----------



## Bushie (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Think outside your own shoes for a moment and ask what options he has?
> 
> 1. He doesn't pursue the debt. Macquarie is then excused from their liabilities, and the government sues Brisconnections because no road was built. Likely shareholders who were intending to come good on their portion will also sue him for wiping out their company.
> 
> ...




Clear Conscience you say Sunder? I wonder how he sleeps at night. He knows that the sh.. has hit the fan & he is still maintaining his upbeat rah rah about the wonderful investment he has, it sounds very hollow now a days.  If your scenarios play out, we would become nothing more than a mortgage defaulter & be treated as such with Macquarie instigating forclosure, our own bank gets first chop as 1st mortgage holder & they jointly tear us to shreds, what a lovely thought in the back of one's mind over Christmas, the season of giving.


----------



## Bushie (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hey all of you seafood dudes, Cuttlefish, Roe & Prawn 86, thank you for your generous & kind suggestions, even though not practical, I felt your kindness.
I have supposedly been quoted today in the Sunday Telegraph, I was contacted last week by a reporter after being referred by Stuart from ASA. I hope when I get to look at a copy that it was an okay article as I don't have much faith in the media getting things accurate. (They usually don't). I am still stuck in the WRONGNESS of how a debt can be purchased without one's knowledge or consent. I feel it was a dirty underhanded trick played out intentionally to catch the unwary as a means to get their hands on extra money and/or assets from 'little people' who don't mean anything to the high flyers. My emotions are swinging constantly from fear to tears to anger & back again. This can't be healthy.


----------



## Julia (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> Hey Julia, you were braver than me - I didnt trust my touchpad not to ping off a trade.



No risk as long as I didn't type in my password.
Attached is screenshot which clearly outlines what is still to pay.
I don't know whether that was what appeared before all the fuss happened.


----------



## Julia (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> I was surprised to read this so have just done a Buy order (without of course taking the last step) and there wasn't any indication that the usual online order wasn't OK.
> Where did you get the info that you could only place phone order?
> 
> Btw, there's an article in today's Courier Mail (Brisbane) that the Brisconnections work is going ahead.






Bushie said:


> Hey all of you seafood dudes, Cuttlefish, Roe & Prawn 86, thank you for your generous & kind suggestions, even though not practical, I felt your kindness.
> I have supposedly been quoted today in the Sunday Telegraph, I was contacted last week by a reporter after being referred by Stuart from ASA. I hope when I get to look at a copy that it was an okay article as I don't have much faith in the media getting things accurate. (They usually don't). I am still stuck in the WRONGNESS of how a debt can be purchased without one's knowledge or consent. I feel it was a dirty underhanded trick played out intentionally to catch the unwary as a means to get their hands on extra money and/or assets from 'little people' who don't mean anything to the high flyers. My emotions are swinging constantly from fear to tears to anger & back again. This can't be healthy.



Did anyone else find as suggested by Cobber above that the shares could not be bought online?  Cobber - reply?

Did any of you buy via E-trade, in which case are you saying the words in capital letters at the top of the confirmation order in my screenshot above were not there when you bought?


----------



## rocket12 (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> No risk as long as I didn't type in my password.
> Attached is screenshot which clearly outlines what is still to pay.
> I don't know whether that was what appeared before all the fuss happened.




That's more like it, it really still should have the total cost but the $2 unpaid should send most people scurrying...


----------



## rocket12 (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> Did anyone else find as suggested by Cobber above that the shares could not be bought online?  Cobber - reply?
> 
> Did any of you buy via E-trade, in which case are you saying the words in capital letters at the top of the confirmation order in my screenshot above were not there when you bought?




It's an interesting one, cause I do remember in the 7.30 report that etrade was one of the ones mentioned that people used.  I cant imagine that they would add in that bold text now as it is admitting fault.


----------



## profit off it (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

The link shows the full transcript of the 7.30 Report story on Brisconnections shown in November. 

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2425392.htm


----------



## rocket12 (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



profit off it said:


> The link shows the full transcript of the 7.30 Report story on Brisconnections shown in November.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2425392.htm




It says the ANZ e-trade site.  I assume thats not the same as e-trade?


----------



## Prospector (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

OK, so I got brave after Julia's lead.  I am with NAB.  There is a little header at the top of the confirm order, but I am not too sure I would actually see it if I had already gone that far.

I understand that ANZ e-trade and e-trade are the same thing.


----------



## rocket12 (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> OK, so I got brave after Julia's lead.  I am with NAB.  There is a little header at the top of the confirm order, but I am not too sure I would actually see it if I had already gone that far.
> 
> I understand that ANZ e-trade and e-trade are the same thing.




Wow you were brave typing in 50000 shares... your heart must have been pounding.  Anyone use westpacs online broker, and what other ones are there??


----------



## Prospector (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Wow you were brave typing in 50000 shares... your heart must have been pounding.  Anyone use westpacs online broker, and what other ones are there??




I typed in $500 worth which is the minimum trade.  And yeah, I keep logging in to make sure there are no orders.  Of course, as Julia says, if you dont type in the trading code there is no order, but even so......


----------



## Sunder (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Bushie said:


> Clear Conscience you say Sunder? I wonder how he sleeps at night. He knows that the sh.. has hit the fan




That's kind of like feeling guilty because someone drove carelessly and killed themselves driving into your house, isn't it? As long as he does everything by the book, what does he have to feel guilty about?

And you've still missed my point. Can you suggest what he can do, which is morally right by all other stakeholders, which would benefit those who have made the mistake?

Edit: Or maybe to be a bit more fair, feeling guilty because the council didn't put crash barriers around a sharp corner, and your house just happened to be sitting on that corner. It's not entirely the buyer's fault, but it's certainly NONE of the business or underwriters fault, except insofar as they "built a house on the corner".


----------



## rocket12 (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> That's kind of like feeling guilty because someone drove carelessly and killed themselves driving into your house, isn't it? As long as he does everything by the book, what does he have to feel guilty about?
> 
> And you've still missed my point. Can you suggest what he can do, which is morally right by all other stakeholders, which would benefit those who have made the mistake?




How is it a mistake to be misled into buying something.  The market wasn't fully informed that this is a contributing share, that is a mistake.

I was being flamed for buying these shares in a thread on another forum, but once they saw the screencaps etc they realized this is wrong.  I feel silly even replying to your posts.


----------



## Sunder (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> How is it a mistake to be misled into buying something.  The market wasn't fully informed that this is a contributing share, that is a mistake.





BCS*CA* I feel silly that I even have to say that.


----------



## sails (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Think outside your own shoes for a moment and ask what options he has?
> 
> 1. He doesn't pursue the debt. Macquarie is then excused from their liabilities, and the government sues Brisconnections because no road was built. Likely shareholders who were intending to come good on their portion will also sue him for wiping out their company.
> 
> ...




Sunder, perhaps they could consider making a market to buy at one tenth of a cent to allow those people who have been caught to sell.  Or perhaps an off market transfer whereby the original investment is lost, but the liability is removed.  If the liabilities were clearly known up front, Macquarie & Bris connections would never have had these illiquid investors in the first place.  

If we compare it to something well known like TLSCA, there were always buyers, so the option to sell out before the next instalment was due made it safe if you didn't want to pay the next amount.

IMHO, the real problem here is that there are no longer any buyers.  I believe the decent thing would be for the underwriters to make such a market and could effectively solve this issue.


----------



## Julia (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I'm quite confused about this situation.

Various posters on this forum have said they did not know of the further $2 obligation when buying the shares.

This is an extract from the transcript of the 7.30 Report item:


> RAMESH VELOUGONDAIAH: I was really shocked. I didn't expect it to pay another $2, and I thought it's like a normal share and when I'm buying in CommSec, there is no information that I need to pay another $2.




Yet, screenshots posted by Prospector of Comsec and myself of E-trade show this payment obligation is clearly stated.

So, Rocket, Bushie and everyone else who is in this situation, are you saying you bought the shares somewhere else, if so, where ?

Or for anyone who used E-trade or Comsec, are you saying the detail on the screenshots was *not there at the time you bought/*


----------



## Sunder (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> Sunder, perhaps they could consider making a market to buy at one tenth of a cent to allow those people who have been caught to sell.




There's a problem with that theory. Everyone who seems "for" action to take place assumes that there's a victimless way out.

If BCS becomes the purchaser of these funds, 

1. They are essentially relieving these people of their debts

2. The underwriters are then under no obligation to underwrite the missing dollars. 

So, BCS goes under and legitimate holders have their value wiped out - they would have no reason to pay the addition $2.


----------



## Sunder (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> Yet, screenshots posted by Prospector of Comsec and myself of E-trade show this payment obligation is clearly stated.
> 
> So, Rocket, Bushie and everyone else who is in this situation, are you saying you bought the shares somewhere else, if so, where ?
> 
> Or for anyone who used E-trade or Comsec, are you saying the detail on the screenshots was *not there at the time you bought/*




Rocket's screenshot clearly show "$1 PD" which I understand to mean "$1 Paid". There's no mention of the unpaid component, but that'd be enough to make most people stop and wonder... Since normal shares don't say this, what does it mean?".


----------



## rocket12 (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> I'm quite confused about this situation.
> 
> Various posters on this forum have said they did not know of the further $2 obligation when buying the shares.
> 
> ...




Nowhere on the commsec main research pages does it mention that there is a further $2 to pay.  The only thing remotely mentioning it is on the chart page where it says $1.00 pd.  This isn't good enough  If it said $1.00 paid $2.00 unpaid then I would have twigged.  

The screencaps of etrade (posted by you), and NAB (posted by prospector) mention this clearly and is good, but again Commsec gave nothing.  There are plenty of screencaps on page 2 of this thread...


----------



## rocket12 (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Rocket's screenshot clearly show "$1 PD" which I understand to mean "$1 Paid". There's no mention of the unpaid component, but that'd be enough to make most people stop and wonder... Since normal shares don't say this, what does it mean?".




That was on one of the many research pages and was the one and only slight hint, why in gods name wouldn't they print $1.00 paid, $2,00 unpaid instaid of $1.00 pd.  Don't you think it would be better to do as NAB and E-trade did and use bold print on the buy page, not the chart page???


----------



## Julia (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Why in gods name does it take until you actually hit the buy button for you to only then be told in plain english these are contributing shares??




Further to my previous post, Rocket are you saying that the screen Prospector posted is not the same as that which you saw?
Clearly, Prospector did not "hit the buy button" yet there is a clear detail about the further payments on that screen.

So, either Comsec have changed their website since you purchased or not?

Another question:  did you have a look at the chart which showed the descent from $1 right down to the price at which you decided it was a good buy?


----------



## Prospector (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

So Commsec had no "unpaid $2" warning then, but NAB and E*Trade did. Perhaps that is an avenue to attack this.  Hey Julia, I am with NAB.  Rocket is with Commsec.  It would seem that if Commsec changed their page now, that would suggest they were at fault in not having this warning; if they still havent changed then why do ANZ and NAB show it and they dont!


----------



## Julia (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Rocket's screenshot clearly show "$1 PD" which I understand to mean "$1 Paid". There's no mention of the unpaid component, but that'd be enough to make most people stop and wonder... Since normal shares don't say this, what does it mean?".



The equivalent page on E-trade does not show the remaining payments to be made either.
But as my screenshot shows, this is very clearly stated *if you read through the Buy Order before actually lodging the order.

This is what I'm trying to establish from you, Rocket:   are you telling us that the screen posted by Prospector which appears before you actually insert your password and hit the Buy button is not the same as that which you saw when you bought????*

Or are you saying that you didn't notice that detail?


----------



## rocket12 (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> Further to my previous post, Rocket are you saying that the screen Prospector posted is not the same as that which you saw?
> Clearly, Prospector did not "hit the buy button" yet there is a clear detail about the further payments on that screen.
> 
> So, either Comsec have changed their website since you purchased or not?
> ...





Prospector posted a screencap from E-trade.  I used Commsec. Here are some of the Commsec screencaps, the buy page makes no mention at all, and the chart page mentions $1.00 pd. Adding $2.00 unpaid may have made a bit more sense.


----------



## Prospector (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Prospector posted a screencap from E-trade.  I used Commsec. .




NAB NAB NAB!:   Julia is with E Trade


----------



## Julia (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> So Commsec had no "unpaid $2" warning then, but NAB and E*Trade did. Perhaps that is an avenue to attack this.  Hey Julia, I am with NAB.  Rocket is with Commsec.



OK, sorry.   Thought you used Commsec. Can someone who is with Commsec please do a pretend order for BCSCA , taking it to the final screen before you have to type in your password and post a screenshot?

(You can't be at risk of buying the shares if you don't complete the last step.)


----------



## Prospector (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> OK, sorry.   Thought you used Commsec. Can someone who is with Commsec please do a pretend order for BCSCA , taking it to the final screen before you have to type in your password and post a screenshot?
> 
> (You can't be at risk of buying the shares if you don't complete the last step.)





Yes, that is what I was thinking was a good thing to do.  Rocket has shown a 'before the issue became recognised' screenshot, if they have since changed their warnings (and do what NAB and ANZ do), then surely that is something that you guys can challenge.
Rocket, did you buy $2000 worth?


----------



## thermalmonster (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I saw nothing on COMSEC either, Do you think there is an avenue here.
I had to call them up to list my shares for sale because there wasnt enough value to list them electronicly 
The Guy was only too pleased to help and listed them with Zero Brokers fee.
The ASA sudgested complaining to COMSEC as a starting point


----------



## rocket12 (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> OK, sorry.   Thought you used Commsec. Can someone who is with Commsec please do a pretend order for BCSCA , taking it to the final screen before you have to type in your password and post a screenshot?
> 
> (You can't be at risk of buying the shares if you don't complete the last step.)




Look above a couple of posts I have posted them.  They are still the same.  They cant change them now.


----------



## Prospector (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> I saw nothing on COMSEC either, Do you think there is an avenue here.
> I had to call them up to list my shares for sale because there wasnt enough value to list them electronicly
> The Guy was only too pleased to help and listed them with Zero Brokers fee.
> The ASA sudgested complaining to COMSEC as a starting point




Well, you certainly now have some evidence that other online trading banks are doing things differently to Commsec!



rocket12 said:


> Look above a couple of posts I have posted them.  They are still the same.  They cant change them now.




You spoke to a person in Comsec to place the order and they didnt mention the liability!  That is outrageous!

I think a lawyer could do something with this.  I really hope so.


----------



## rocket12 (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

No that was to sell them he had to ring, but wonder why he was able to buy them without ringing?? That's something else.....


----------



## thermalmonster (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

The thing that makes me almost Laugh in the Brisconnections Fact Sheet is this bit " When purchasing stapled securities Investors ASSUME a Legal obligation and liability to pay the installments"

er.. No   Investors assumed the bloody opposite.

Also Have a look at some of the spelling in the letter, its worse than mine.
Obviously written by a right meat head!!

What Is a vigorous approach to Collecting Payments?  Are there not laws about this kind of thing?
Its a very Bully Boy approach that will look bad in court.


----------



## Julia (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Look above a couple of posts I have posted them.  They are still the same.  They cant change them now.



Rocket, sorry if I seem to be harping on but it could be an important point.
What I'm wondering is if the screen you have posted above is the absolutely final thing you see before committing to buy?

E-trade have this screen below which gives no mention of the additional payments.  This precedes the page I posted earlier which clearly states the additional obligation and which you would think anyone would read before inserting final password to Buy.


----------



## thermalmonster (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I bought them without ringing because my transaction was over $500.

Will PM you Rocket


----------



## Julia (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> The thing that makes me almost Laugh in the Brisconnections Fact Sheet is this bit " When purchasing stapled securities Investors ASSUME a Legal obligation and liability to pay the installments"
> 
> er.. No   Investors assumed the bloody opposite.
> 
> ...




No, thermalmonster, in the sense that ASSUME is used in the above context it means "take on".   i.e. "When purchasing stapled securities investors take on (or undertake) a legal obligation and liability to pay the installments."
Sorry, but that is completely clear and correctly expressed.


----------



## jackson8 (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> OK, sorry.   Thought you used Commsec. Can someone who is with Commsec please do a pretend order for BCSCA , taking it to the final screen before you have to type in your password and post a screenshot?
> 
> (You can't be at risk of buying the shares if you don't complete the last step.)




Order Details (Buy) 
g********on, details of your order are shown below for your approval and confirmation.

  I wish to buy

  Quantity 500000 
  Security Name BRISCONNECTION TRUST CTG (BCSCA) 
  Price At $0.001 per share 
  Order Style Default Expiry 
Please check all details carefully and then confirm that you wish to proceed with the order by clicking on the `Confirm` button. Please note your instruction will be actioned on the market only when the ITS (Equities) is open. 


 now im not prepared to click on the confirm button but as far as i can see there has been no warning as to the ramifications of this purchase .
 if they have a warning after you hit confirm i feel it may be a bit late. and even though it is the weekend and therefore not trading if something happened to me in the next five minutes which would stop me from exiting my order i would be trully stuffed....


----------



## Prospector (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

As Julia says, the screen you need to get to is the one where all of the details of the trade are summarised and you insert your trading pin to confirm the transaction.  Did this page not have any 'unpaid $2' on it?

Jackson, that would seem to be the page we are talking about it, selecting confirm would buy them I would think!   *Price At $0.001 per share * - that is just wrong!


----------



## thermalmonster (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

The only time I have seen the $1.00 paid and $2.00 unpaid is when I found all this out and looked at the trading certificate.


----------



## Julia (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Thanks Jackson.

Anyone else able to post an actual screenshot of the* final screen* which appears  as at today's date before the Buy commitment is made?


----------



## Julia (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> As Julia says, the screen you need to get to is the one where all of the details of the trade are summarised and you insert your trading pin to confirm the transaction.  Did this page not have any 'unpaid $2' on it?
> 
> Jackson, that would seem to be the page we are talking about it, selecting confirm would buy them I would think!   *Price At $0.001 per share * - that is just wrong!



That's why we need to see a screenshot of the FINAL page as of today to compare with Rocket's taken in November.
And Rocket, you still haven't actually clarified if the screenshot you posted was the one preceding the final one.  We must have other Commsec users here who could walk through the pretend trade?


----------



## Prospector (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Here you go...The buy page I showed you has the proceed button, click that and this is the last chance.





I reckon this is it Julia?  Rocket, do you not have to insert a trading password when you buy shares or has that already been done, and then you just click the Confirm button and the order is entered?


----------



## thermalmonster (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I could do it and then cancel the order, But I am a little nervous of doing it!!!!


----------



## Julia (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> I could do it and then cancel the order, But I am a little nervous of doing it!!!!



Don't do it then cancel the order just in case something goes wrong.
Do it up until you have to enter your PIN code and then enter "Buy", "Submit"
or whatever Comsec's final instruction is.  Just make the order for 10 shares, at market.   Take a screenshot of what you see before the final action.


----------



## thermalmonster (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

OK give me 5,
How do I get screen shot on a mac?? and how do I upload it?


----------



## Julia (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> OK give me 5,
> How do I get screen shot on a mac?? and how do I upload it?



I don't know anything about Mac's.  To upload go to "Manage Attachments"
underneath the "Reply " box, click on that, then on Browse to find the screenshot (wherever you have saved it), then click on that, then click on Upload.  Then come back to your Reply box and click on Submit as usual.

Or any other Comsec client who could help out here?


----------



## thermalmonster (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I cant proceed with only 10 shares.
A comsec Transaction has to be for $500 or more

It has no mention of $2.00 unpaid up to the confirm screen


----------



## Prospector (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> OK give me 5,
> How do I get screen shot on a mac?? and how do I upload it?




On PC's there is a key "prt Scr" (top right) - you press Ctrl and Prt Scr; the screen shot is "copied" to your pC; then open up a word document page and then press the command for "paste"   try to convert that for Macs.
Does this help at all?


thermalmonster said:


> I cant proceed with only 10 shares.
> A comsec Transaction has to be for $500 or more
> 
> It has no mention of $2.00 unpaid up to the confirm screen




Hmm, there may still be another page to go.  That's why I tried with $500 earlier until I got the tradepin screen.


----------



## rocket12 (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> I reckon this is it Julia?  Rocket, do you not have to insert a trading password when you buy shares or has that already been done, and then you just click the Confirm button and the order is entered?




Click the button and deals done.


----------



## thermalmonster (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

The only way to do it would be to simulate a one million dollar Liability.
and cancel the transaction straight after.. A little risky.


----------



## sails (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> There's a problem with that theory. Everyone who seems "for" action to take place assumes that there's a victimless way out.
> 
> If BCS becomes the purchaser of these funds,
> 
> ...




I did also suggest that perhaps the underwriters could make a market to enable these people to sell their shares.

What's the point of going ahead with a project when a potentially large number of investors don't have the millions required?  Surely, this thing will go bust anyway.  May as well make the necessary market or procedures to let these unsuspecting investors out and try and get the funds from those that can actually afford.

Whether these investors found the relevant info or not, it doesn't change the fact they simply don't have the funds.  In many cases, banks would have first mortgage on their homes, so there's not going to be much in it for BrisC anyway.  May not even be enough to pay for debt collection. Let alone the moral side of ruining the lives of so many.

If they are going to trap people in by not letting them sell before the instalments are due, how can BrisC know if they actually have the funds to proceed with their project anyway?


----------



## thermalmonster (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Me too,
 I dont think you will be able to buy them


----------



## jackson8 (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> Thanks Jackson.
> 
> Anyone else able to post an actual screenshot of the* final screen* which appears  as at today's date before the Buy commitment is made?




okay have just placed a sell order over some other shares that i own.......after filling in initial form and hitting  "proceed"  button a warning came up concerning warning of the short selling ban........then once hitting  "confirm"  the order is placed .........so therefore if there was to be a warning concerning bcsca you would expect it to come up after hitting the  "proceed"  button .......which would still give you the option to chicken out before hitting  "confirm"


----------



## rocket12 (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> I cant proceed with only 10 shares.
> A comsec Transaction has to be for $500 or more
> 
> It has no mention of $2.00 unpaid up to the confirm screen




The screencap above is definately the final click.  I tried with BHP with one share but it wouldn't let me due to not enough money, so did it with 25 shares for a total of $600 BHP shares and once I clicked that button this is the screen that comes up.  (Ps i've cancelled the order)


----------



## thermalmonster (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Thats the same screen as I got, And at this stage you have bought them.
You then get to find the $2.00 unpaid when they e-mail you your share certificate.


----------



## jackson8 (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> I did also suggest that perhaps the underwriters could make a market to enable these people to sell their shares.
> 
> What's the point of going ahead with a project when a potentially large number of investors don't have the millions required?  Surely, this thing will go bust anyway.  May as well make the necessary market or procedures to let these unsuspecting investors out and try and get the funds from those that can actually afford.
> 
> ...




if brisc were to pursue the payments and according to their latest ann. they are going to ....they have six months to pursue and charge interest and other fees over and above the installment price 

surely the only option would be to declare bankruptcy for those unable to pay or sit out the 6 months and hope not to receive the dreaded letter.

not advocating bankruptcy as it has a lot of other negative implications on your life but for those without another avenue it may be their only saviour


----------



## Prospector (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



jackson8 said:


> if brisc were to pursue the payments and according to their latest ann. they are going to ....they have six months to pursue and charge interest and other fees over and above the installment price
> 
> surely the only option would be to declare bankruptcy for those unable to pay or sit out the 6 months and hope not to receive the dreaded letter.
> 
> not advocating bankruptcy as it has a lot of other negative implications on your life but for those without another avenue it may be their only saviour



Even if you declare bankruptcy, other assets can be liquidated.  I hope there will be a better way forward than that.  I am thinking Commsec's lack of disclosure will come into play, given Rocket's sequence above, and the warnings given to Julia by E*Trade and NAB to me.


----------



## thermalmonster (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I certainly Hope & Think so too.

I am from the UK and not sure what your laws are here. Im certain back home this would have been kicked into touch by an un-enforceable credit agreement or similar. where no contractual agreements are in place and signed.
I guess things are a little different here.


----------



## Cartman (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

No vested interest in Brismob but been reading a bit of this thread

Sunder   people here are suffering my friend ----- what is your point!!

bottom line is humans will take a punt on almost anything if the R/R looks ok ---- stock drops fom $X to X cents ------ ill punt a coupla thousand on that -- who knows it might get to 2X cents and i make a coupla thousand 

people dont look too closely (ie do lots of research) at something that is cheap because ----- mmmm --- its CHEAP !!

unfortunately this one wasnt cheap 

 so even tho you are probably technically correct Sunder ------

stop preaching holier than thou reasoning and just put yourself in their shoes and leave them alone  -- cause the day may come when u do something similar and u may well be looking for some support from someone 

probably regret posting this one but --- oh well --- what the hell


----------



## Bushie (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Go Cartman, thank you for that oh so needed vote of support, I must admit that Sunder's attitude had me a tad intimidated, & I didn't like the feeling, my emotions are so raw as it is.  Referring also to the chatter about the screens, Netwealth had no warnings at all either, but as you all have said, does it matter in the end? We are trapped now, & what we are really looking for is a legal way out that won't cost us our homes & other possessions.


----------



## Cartman (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Bushie said:


> Go Cartman, thank you for that oh so needed vote of support, I must admit that Sunder's attitude had me a tad intimidated, & I didn't like the feeling, my emotions are so raw as it is.  Referring also to the chatter about the screens, Netwealth had no warnings at all either, but as you all have said, does it matter in the end? We are trapped now, & what we are really looking for is a legal way out that won't cost us our homes & other possessions.





No probs Bushman ---- hard to imagine how u poor buggas feel ---- sickening stuff -----


----------



## Prospector (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hey Bushie, there are a lot of people offering you support; do not be intimidated by people who are trying to kick you down.


----------



## Julia (21 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> So here is the full buy page sequence.



OK, thanks Rocket.  I'd just been wondering if there was a Comsec equivalent to the page both Prospector and I came up with on NAB and E-trade respectively.

Given that Comsec don't appear even now to be offering any clear warning on their Buy screen before you commit to the purchase, and the other two brokers do, wouldn't it seem that Comsec clients have a case against the broker?

What do the ASA say about this?


----------



## Sunder (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> I did also suggest that perhaps the underwriters could make a market to enable these people to sell their shares.
> 
> What's the point of going ahead with a project when a potentially large number of investors don't have the millions required?




Sails, do you understand what it means to "make a market" in these conditions? Essentially, you're saying the the underwriters should buy these shares off the people who want to sell, but cannot. In essence, they are forgiving debt. We are back to square one. Why should Macquarie shareholders suffer for the mistakes of someone else? 

The project WILL have all the money it requires. The only question is whether 100% of it comes from Macquarie shareholders, or, some of it comes from the people who promised - even if unwittingly to pay for it. 



cartman said:


> Sunder people here are suffering my friend ----- what is your point!!
> 
> so even tho you are probably technically correct Sunder ------
> 
> stop preaching holier than thou reasoning and just put yourself in their shoes and leave them alone -- cause the day may come when u do something similar and u may well be looking for some support from someone




Cartman, these people are suffering, but someone has to. If it's not them, it's the underwriter's shareholders. Are you going to be sympathetic to them when their dividend is cut and their share price crashes due to unforeseen circumstances meaning they forgive someone else's debt? Remember, they did not underwrite forgiveness of debt, but the inability to recover debt. As long as the debt can be legally recovered, they have a moral responsibility to try. 

If you're on their side, put your money where your mouth is. Volunteer to take on their debt. 

Speaking of putting yourself in someone elses shoes, put yourself in the shoes of the people who stand to lose a LOT of money, because someone didn't do their research, and ignored the news stories on the front of Comsec, the prompts we're seeing on eTrade and Comsec, and didn't bother to find out what the CA "Contribution A" code means. 

Although I don't hold any MQG, I'm being the devil's advocate for people who have no voice here. Yes, I feel sorry for the people who made genuine mistakes, but this is reality, genuine mistakes often end in death, feel fortunate that in this case it's only going to end in debt. Someone has to pay the piper, and why should it be the people who have made no mistake, over those who have?

Yes, I know I'm spouting an unpopular view, but this argument has been very one sided, and I'm trying to point out the other side. 

*That's the point and the bottom line. Someone has to pay. Why should it be Macquarie Bank share holders, over BCSCA shareholders?"*


----------



## Bushie (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> *That's the point and the bottom line. Someone has to pay. Why should it be Macquarie Bank share holders, over BCSCA shareholders?"*




From where I sit, it is better to lose a paper figure on a share price that has some chance of recovery in years to come vs losing one's home & contents & one's precious possessions. We have already spent 2/3rds of a life times blood sweat & tears to obtain what we have, it isn't much, but its OURS. All of the shareholders  from Mac Bank etc you mentioned don't have their entire lives wrapped up in their shares, I think this is a little different.

And another thing, if someone has to pay - make it the ....... who chose to allow these toxic shares to sit there lying in wait for gullable or uninformed retail investors like me.  If Mac Bank hadn't dumped millions of shares onto the open market, this would not have happened.  Why were they not parcelled out to institutional investors, thats all they are really suited for, as we have all said over & over, $500-00 now buys a $1 million dollar debt!!! Sunder, is your home & assets on the line in any of your investments? I think not.


----------



## Sunder (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Bushie said:


> From where I sit, it is better to lose a paper figure on a share price that has some chance of recovery in years to come vs losing one's home & contents & one's precious possessions.




This is what it comes down to, and what I said earlier before I was going to exit this thread (before a whole new raft of people joined and new interesting points were brought up)

To the people involved in this, it's very personal. To anyone not involved in this, most can see why others should not be made to pay for their mistakes. I will not convince you that this is just a very very very expensive mistake, and not necessarily the fault of anyone else. 

On the other hand, from where a MQG shareholder sits, he cannot see why he should have to pay for your mistake, when his company did everything by the book. 

I hope BCS doesn't pursue anyone to bankruptcy. I hope Macquarie doesn't have to fork out 100% of the money. Maybe the Queensland Govt will waive their right to a road. I don't know. 

But all I do know, is that someone has to pay, it's either going to be BCSCA holders, MQG holders, or the Queensland tax payer. As I am not a BCSCA holder, a MQG holder, nor a Qld tax payer, I feel somewhat impartial when I say that those who promised the debt are first in line to pay it. Then, the insurance company, Macquarie is second in line to pay it, followed by the tax payer. 

If you're going to talk about remedial action, talk about suing the brokers, not about making markets, forgiving debts, or bail outs. I have said it before, and I'll say it again, MQG and BCS have done everything by the book, and they should be able to sleep soundly with a clean conscience. If there is any blame to be laid, and I have my doubts, it's only _contributory_ negligence on the part of the broker, not even full negligence... And as I said, I still have doubts on that bit.


----------



## Prospector (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> If you're going to talk about remedial action, talk about suing the brokers, not about making markets, forgiving debts, or bail outs. I have said it before, and I'll say it again, MQG and BCS have done everything by the book, and they should be able to sleep soundly with a clean conscience. If there is any blame to be laid, and I have my doubts, it's only _contributory_ negligence on the part of the broker, not even full negligence... And as I said, I still have doubts on that bit.




I did a search through on other forums on why people bought into this in the first place,I think back in July and the main reason seems to be the excellent returns that were promised.  Those returns have been slashed and are now not going to take place until well into next year, and after the second instalment.  This is about the time the sp totally tanked.  No doubt there is some teeny weeny disclaimer in the PDS about the ability to vary, but really, is that scrupulous of MCQ when the huge returns it offered were broadly publicised for the IPO and which resulted in oversubscription but then dont come through as promised?


----------



## Bushie (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> *That's the point and the bottom line. Someone has to pay. Why should it be Macquarie Bank share holders, over BCSCA shareholders?"*




My apologies to the administrator, I guess we both overstepped the mark with our assumptions. I choose to let it all lie for now.

As a new matter of interest, I just had a call from Slater & Gordon, they have chosen to limit their interest in this matter to "limit the scope of potential action to those with purchases made as a result of a negligent 3rd party." So we who purchased online need to keep searching for a saviour.


----------



## Julia (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I've asked this before and as far as I can see no one has answered:

what is the advice of the ASA to BCS shareholders?


----------



## rocket12 (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> I've asked this before and as far as I can see no one has answered:
> 
> what is the advice of the ASA to BCS shareholders?




To get legal advice etc, and to not fall for too good to be true advice.  They are doing a great job with holding meetings with Trevor Rowe, and asic etc, continually trying to look for another solution.


----------



## Prospector (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Bushie said:


> As a new matter of interest, I just had a call from Slater & Gordon, they have chosen to limit their interest in this matter to "limit the scope of potential action to those with purchases made as a result of a negligent 3rd party." So we who purchased online need to keep searching for a saviour.




But isnt Commsec a negligent 3rd party in not warning you prior to purchase, where NAB and E*Trade did?


----------



## Macquack (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> I did a search through on other forums on why people bought into this in the first place,I think back in July and the main reason seems to be the excellent returns that were promised.  Those returns have been slashed and are now not going to take place until well into next year, and after the second instalment.  This is about the time the sp totally tanked.  No doubt there is some teeny weeny disclaimer in the PDS about the ability to vary, but really, *is that scrupulous of MCQ *when the huge returns it offered were broadly publicised for the IPO and which resulted in oversubscription but then dont come through as promised?




Good point Prospector.

Macquarie management are a bunch of dirty capitalist pigs who look after themselves first and their shareholders last.

*Considering that the "credit crisis" was already in full swing*, what has actually happened to produce the current situation?

I believe it was Macquarie Group in one of its many guises that manipulated this whole catastrophy.


----------



## rocket12 (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Someone else just bought another $500 worth today giving them a 1million dollar dept...Whilst I would love someone to come along and buy all of our shares, it's not good that people are still falling for this and I don't want my shares to be bought by someone else being misled into buying them.


----------



## Cartman (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Cartman, these people are suffering, but someone has to. If it's not them, it's the underwriter's shareholders. Are you going to be sympathetic to them when their dividend is cut and their share price crashes due to unforeseen circumstances meaning they forgive someone else's debt? "[/b]




mmmmm i may be confused but are u asking me to feel sorry for Macbank S/H's over Briscons S/H because their divi may drop because MacB has to foot the bill for the failed float ??  ie M/B share price may drop a bit   --- is that what you are actually saying??


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Someone else just bought another $500 worth today giving them a 1million dollar dept...Whilst I would love someone to come along and buy all of our shares, it's not good that people are still falling for this and I don't want my shares to be bought by someone else being misled into buying them.




With all the publicity, Rocket, even I would reckon that is crook.

There are many idiots out there, but some I would agree, need to be saved from themselves.

Perhaps it was Macquarie buying, I jest.

Its crook if simple fools are buying this dog atm.

gg


----------



## rocket12 (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Speaking of putting yourself in someone elses shoes, put yourself in the shoes of the people who stand to lose a LOT of money, because someone didn't do their research, and ignored the news stories on the front of Comsec, the prompts we're seeing on eTrade and Comsec, and didn't bother to find out what the CA "Contribution A" code means.
> 
> 
> *That's the point and the bottom line. Someone has to pay. Why should it be Macquarie Bank share holders, over BCSCA shareholders?"*




I have checked those five or so news stories every day since I bought these shares and it has never been there.  You say it was there a while back and has been rotated off, then it must have been a looooong while ago (you wouldn't think this odd that they have removed it??).  So you really believe that because we didn't do our research and look for your "majic link" that isn't there, and didn't take any notice of the "$1.00pd" on the chart page of commsec that we are at fault.

Do you understand that millions of retail investors wouldn't even think that just because one share has 3 codes and another has 5 that there is something up, to us they are just codes for that share.  Do you understand that if those same investors were told that there was $1.00 paid  $2.00 unpaid as clearly stated on the E-trade buy page then yes they definately would have investigated.

I really am puzzled that you think this is good disclosure.

If you sold a car to me and it turns out to be a bomb, that's my problem.  Buyer beware.  But from what you are telling me you think it would be fine for you to sell me that same car, and then after my purchase you inform me that there will be 2 further payments of 2 million dollars.  Unbenowns to me you had that clearly stated in the notice in your back pocket, and there is also a notice inside the car under the carpet in the front seat of the car.  There was also an article about it in a car magazine a few weeks back.  

I have a feeling you would think this is good practice.


----------



## rocket12 (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> With all the publicity, Rocket, even I would reckon that is crook.
> 
> There are many idiots out there, but some I would agree, need to be saved from themselves.
> 
> ...




Due to the publicity there has been very few sales now, but some people dont read the news.  And it will keep happening. 

The ASX etc all know that the market is open to everybody and anybody, and as someone else said, Australians love a punt and will just look at a share like this and just think stuff it i'll have a crack, not caring if they lose the money, and certainly not thinking for one second that they would have to go searching for hours for info that should be right there in front of there face $1.00 paid  $2.00 unpaid.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Due to the publicity there has been very few sales now, but some people dont read the news.  And it will keep happening.
> 
> The ASX etc all know that the market is open to everybody and anybody, and as someone else said, Australians love a punt and will just look at a share like this and just think stuff it i'll have a crack, not caring if they lose the money, and certainly not thinking for one second that they would have to go searching for hours for info that should be right there in front of there face $1.00 paid  $2.00 unpaid.






Agree totally mate, something needs to be done . The ASX and ASIC are not the best of regulators. 

Keep the pressure up mate.

At least we've got asf.

Contact ASA as well, they are proactive in protecting investors, naming and shaming.

Australian Shareholders Association.  google it.

gg


----------



## Cartman (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Cartman said:


> mmmmm i may be confused but are u asking me to feel sorry for Macbank S/H's over Briscons S/H because their divi may drop because MacB has to foot the bill for the failed float ??  ie M/B share price may drop a bit   --- is that what you are actually saying??




ok im an impatient sob --- i cant wait for your reply SUNDER --- if the above b true; well actually i do feel sorry for anyone investing with M/B ---  overpaid underperforming pack of directors if ever there was any ----- they take ginormous amounts of S/H's money every year and buy holiday houses from here to eternity while pretending to be efficient ----- crooks in suits would be more appropriate  -- yep i definitely feel sorry for M/B S/H's 

as for putting my money where my mouth is ---- ok im in ------ if the unfortunate Briscon S/H's  can find another million suckers like me i'll buy 250 shares off the registry ----- thats gona cost me 500 bucks correct ------ i dont have a lot of cash but i can spare 500 bucks for my fellow man 

are you in Sunder? ----- and i am serious!!


----------



## Cobber (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> I was surprised to read this so have just done a Buy order (without of course taking the last step) and there wasn't any indication that the usual online order wasn't OK.
> Where did you get the info that you could only place phone order?
> 
> Btw, there's an article in today's Courier Mail (Brisbane) that the Brisconnections work is going ahead.





I could buy online like normal, but as soon as I went to sell it wouldn't work so I rang the help desk who said it was a special order trade and the order could only be filled by manual order.  That stated that numerous people had issues with what has occurred and to ring Mac bank


----------



## Cobber (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Has anyone heard of this Ombudsman thing.  I was talking to a friend about what is going on and his broker suggested going to the Ombudman - sorry bit naive.


----------



## rocket12 (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Cartman said:


> ok im an impatient sob --- i cant wait for your reply SUNDER --- if the above b true; well actually i do feel sorry for anyone investing with M/B ---  overpaid underperforming pack of directors if ever there was any ----- they take ginormous amounts of S/H's money every year and buy holiday houses from here to eternity while pretending to be efficient ----- crooks in suits would be more appropriate  -- yep i definitely feel sorry for M/B S/H's
> 
> as for putting my money where my mouth is ---- ok im in ------ if the unfortunate Briscon S/H's  can find another million suckers like me i'll buy 250 shares off the registry ----- thats gona cost me 500 bucks correct ------ i dont have a lot of cash but i can spare 500 bucks for my fellow man
> 
> are you in Sunder? ----- and i am serious!!




Sorry for jacking your post i'm sure Sunder will reply as well.  Speeking for myself I wouldn't want anyone else to bail us out other than the QLD government or the underwriters.


----------



## rocket12 (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Cobber said:


> Has anyone heard of this Ombudsman thing.  I was talking to a friend about what is going on and his broker suggested going to the Ombudman - sorry bit naive.



http://www.fos.org.au/centric/home_...te/how_to_lodge_a_dispute_banking_finance.jsp click on the online dispute form halfway down the page, fill it in and follow the steps.

Also complain to the ASX http://www.asx.com.au/supervision/complaints/company.htm click on the complaint form link

And ASIC http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...mpanies+or+people?openDocument#complaint_form


----------



## Cartman (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Sorry for jacking your post i'm sure Sunder will reply as well.  Speeking for myself I wouldn't want anyone else to bail us out other than the QLD government or the underwriters.





yeah thats cool Rocket i understand  what yr saying but if a million punters took 250 shares each and that saved  ruining a multitude of lives --- (geez the Gov. would save a fortune on zoloft for a start)  then i seriously dont have a prob with that -------- far too much greed in the world as it is ---- 

and ya never know  maybe the shares might be worth more than 2 bucks one day


----------



## rocket12 (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Cartman said:


> yeah thats cool Rocket i understand  what yr saying but if a million punters took 250 shares each and that saved  ruining a multitude of lives --- (geez the Gov. would save a fortune on zoloft for a start)  then i seriously dont have a prob with that -------- far too much greed in the world as it is ----
> 
> and ya never know  maybe the shares might be worth more than 2 bucks one day




Forgot to mention thanks for the offer...  And yes the silly thing is the shares if I could afford my 4 million will probably worth more than that one day as it sounds like a very big project...


----------



## awg (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Recently on this thread, I suggested a "way out" for trapped investors.

I did so in all seriousness.

method was to conduct an "off-market" transfer to a willing party.

my suggestion was to find an elderly homeless alcoholic

explain to them what it is and why you are doing it.

agree on a sum of money

do the deal.

So long as you determine the person has no assets, income or prospects, then I believe the moral dimension is within the bounds of what i personally would find acceptable.

If my house was on the line....

I have no holding in BrisC

my suggestion is soley for the possible assistance of the several posters who appear to have a problem, (and curiosity)

I think it would be of interest to them if other ASF members posted their opinion on the practicality of this option.

I cant see any administrative or legal obstacle, but there may be some i dont know of.

a desperate measure for sure, but depends on how desperate one feels.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



awg said:


> Recently on this thread, I suggested a "way out" for trapped investors.
> 
> I did so in all seriousness.
> 
> ...




awg, its been tried before.

Its called "Bottom of the Harbour Scheme"

a mate in the late 70's early 80's made a few quid out of it but the regulators followed him with zeal.

I'm no lawyer but I'd look in to it.

gg


----------



## thermalmonster (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

hey Sunder,
I can understand you taking pitty on Mac Bank IF !
Us punters had willingly and knowingly defaulted on our Agreements.

None of us obviously new about the $2.00 installments.
When you go for a home loan and agree to the repayments, then yes you have defaulted on your agreement, But for ##c# sake we have all been stitched up.
How can someone have a $1M liability at the click of a mouse button with no contract, nothing signed and no credit worthiness check is completely Wrong, Immoral, and extreeemly irresponsible.
If I went on COMSEC now and tried to by $1million of BHP shares the transaction would bounce back the next day because there aint enough funds in the account to pay for it!!
If I then went to comesec for a million dollar loan to by them they would want some pretty dam good security, and the paperwork would be 10 pages thick.

So I urge you to think again about the scenario that is unfolding  and put yourself in our shoes for just one moment.


----------



## awg (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> awg, its been tried before.
> 
> Its called "Bottom of the Harbour Scheme"
> 
> ...





one VERY important difference?

no tax is avoided

I do not wish to suggest any person pursue an act of illegality, I want to make that perfectly clear, and I am sure no one else does either.

I do not wish to speculate on the morality of actions with regard to any company or shareholder


----------



## profit off it (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> To the people involved in this, it's very personal. To anyone not involved in this, *most* can see why others should not be made to pay for their mistakes. I will not convince you that this is just a very very very expensive mistake, and not necessarily the fault of anyone else.




Most? Really? How do you know this? If anything I would have thought that *most* people not involved would think this is an appalling situation for those involved and should never have been allowed to happen, and that the people who created it should be the one's held responsible.


----------



## Bushie (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



profit off it said:


> Most? Really? How do you know this? If anything I would have thought that *most* people not involved would think this is an appalling situation for those involved and should never have been allowed to happen, and that the people who created it should be the one's held responsible.




Hey Profit off it - thank you for the vote of confidence. We obviously weren't 'in our right minds' when we searched for relevant info, saw a good project with long term benefits in the real world and in the financial world, and made a judgement call to risk $500 or $1,000 or in some cases more, in an attempt in a bear market to purchase a parcel of shares that could pay dividends in years to come, absolutely no different from any other investor. The kicker is that the debt attached was NOT VISIBLE in all the lead up screens, nor in the available news releases as at 17/11/08, nor in the company reports in Netwealth that sent you to Aspect Huntley for the co. report. (also as at today 22.12.) The poor sucker that purchased today is also a victim of not accessing the obscure warnings, that are 'oh so available' to those who look. (depending on which online trading system he is using.)  I hope he finds this thread soon so we can ease his pain with a little support.
As a matter of interest check out Google finance - BCSCA & search to your hearts content, NO MENTION OF $2-00 UNPAID!


----------



## skyQuake (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



awg said:


> one VERY important difference?
> 
> no tax is avoided
> 
> ...




The idea has merit, and doesn't tread on any legal toes as far as I know. 'Selling' the parcel to some homeless bum on the street/already bankrupt person is in effect almost identical to selling it on market to someone for $0.001. The same way some guy sold it to u on the ASX...


----------



## rocket12 (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> But isnt Commsec a negligent 3rd party in not warning you prior to purchase, where NAB and E*Trade did?




Slater and Gordon are purely looking for holders that used financial advisors or actual live brokers to purchase their shares.  And are going to be suing the financial advisors.  I assume this senario has happened quite a lot for S & G to take this route.  

I feel for any financial advisor or broker caught up in this, their career and livelyhood shot to pieces.


----------



## thermalmonster (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Possibly

I guess they hold proffesional Indemnitey insurance though?


----------



## Julia (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Slater and Gordon are purely looking for holders that used financial advisors or actual live brokers to purchase their shares.  And are going to be suing the financial advisors.  I assume this senario has happened quite a lot for S & G to take this route.
> 
> I feel for any financial advisor or broker caught up in this, their career and livelyhood shot to pieces.



If it were me, I wouldn't just be accepting that from S. & G.   Imo Comsec have failed to provide proper disclosure in not clearly stating on the Buy screen that there is another $2 to pay.   

As we've already discussed, NAB and E-trade are in the clear over this if what's available on their websites now mirrors what was available when the affected shareholders bought.

Rocket, Thermalmonster et al, have you actually sought any legal advice at this stage?   If you have no assets you may be eligible for legal aid.  Enquire through your local courthouse.  Alternatively seek a 10 minute appt at set fee from a solicitor to briefly outline the situation and get an opinion as to whether they feel there is an option to pursue.  If so, they might be prepared to do it on a no win/no fee basis.
These are just suggestions.  I don't know whether they are useful or not.

I think it would be worth the cost of a short legal interview to get an objective opinion.   In such a stressful situation as this, it's very easy to start going round in circles and lose perspective.

Re Sunder's comments:   I understand that what Sunder has said seems lacking in compassion, and possibly as though he/she is being judgemental towards BCSCA holders.  I don't think this is how it was meant, but rather is an attempt to offer a purely objective view as to where the debt chips will have to fall if it's not possible to demonstrate liability in terms of broker lack of disclosure, e.g. Comsec.


----------



## joeyjoejoe (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I wonder if the person who bought the $500 worth of shares todays knows hes up for a cool $1 million ..... i think its a disgraceful situation... i think if I had shares in this one id probably wake up every morning and throw up..... 

i dunno know who would look at market depth like that and buy a share but my answer would be probably some1 who thought they were risking $500. (what i mean to say is i can understand how people are in this situation even todays poor soul, but todays warning signs are more obvious than those who intitaly took the bait

none the less, my deepest sympathies to all holders. i hope the outcome is good for all


----------



## Sunder (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Cartman said:


> are you in Sunder? ----- and i am serious!!




I'll put my money where my mouth is - I believe the first person to pay for this debacle are BCSCA shareholders, then Underwriters, then the government. Since I am not a BCSCA shareholder, I miss round one, since I'm not a MQG shareholder, I miss round two. Since NSW is a net contributor to QLD taxes, I'll pay in round three. How's that? Totally consistent with my view.

I'm not sure why people are still harping on about "have a heart" "Put yourself in their shoes". You can be sympathetic, while still upholding principles of justice. I am not saying that people "deserve" what's coming to them. I'm saying that people will rightly face what's coming to them. In cases of tradgedy, justice does not always mean everyone comes out scathed only to their degree of complicity, nor does it mean everyone wears the burden evenly.  

Let's just say you left a frayed electrical cord crossing the footpath to charge your car battery. It starts raining and a young child gets a nasty non-fatal shock, falls over and fragments their spine up high, and they need life time care - for a full quadraplegic, this is usually about 7 million dollars. 

Now, you go to the judge and say "But there is no way I could have known the power cord was frayed. It's not reasonable to check the power cord every single time I use it. And besides, I don't have 7 million dollars, this will bankrupt me!".

Is it fair for the judge to say "Well, I guess it's not your fault, and it's not fair that such a simple mistake will cost you everything. Sorry kid, you're just gonna have to make do with nothing"? This is what you're asking someone to do - take a loss, because your mistake is trivial in comparison to the consequence. 

Push this analogy further - there is a victims compensation scheme, an underwriter, if you will, that will give the kid a safety net - a basic level of care even if they can't get compensation. But is it fair to let the other person off totally scott free? Well, no, the law courts will do all it can to get everything it legally can from the "offender", including garnishing wages, before the safety net kicks in.

This is the tried and tested, and "most fair" way of dealing with things, and this is likely how it's going to happen here. 

Remember, this is NOT a single party issue. Someone will suffer, and there is a rightful and fair order to this, even if some people will pay disproportionately for their mistake.


----------



## Sunder (22 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> Re Sunder's comments:   I understand that what Sunder has said seems lacking in compassion, and possibly as though he/she is being judgemental towards BCSCA holders.  I don't think this is how it was meant, but rather is an attempt to offer a purely objective view as to where the debt chips will have to fall if it's not possible to demonstrate liability in terms of broker lack of disclosure, e.g. Comsec.




Thank you Julia.

I know it seems I'm coming across as not having a heart, but all I'm trying to say is:

Life is unfair, and sometimes we have to pay consequences disproportionate to the action, but it's even less fair to expect someone else to bail you out. They call this moral hazard, and it's a term being thrown around with the bailing out of US banks, who took on risks they didn't understand at the time.


----------



## Cartman (23 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Since NSW is a net contributor to QLD taxes, I'll pay in round three. How's that? .




sounds like how a politician would answer   



Sunder said:


> Remember, this is NOT a single party issue. Someone will suffer, and there is a rightful and fair order to this, even if some people will pay disproportionately for their mistake.




firstly, you are a good writer --- you explain your points well --- legally you may be totally right; 

My main issue was that the folk on this thread dont need to be depressed any more than they probably already are ---  for eg (analogy cause u like them) your daughter runs out on the road and gets both her legs smashed up and also cant walk for the rest of her life ---- yep there are consequences--  bills-- ongoing care etc etc

we all know there are consequences --- what im saying is you wouldnt want your neighbours knocking on your door everyday telling you why kidz shouldnt run on the road --- it serves very little purpose ----

id rather see someone with your obvious intellect trying to look for angles that might give some hope --- im sure u arent trying to be unsympathetic but the proverbial salt in the wound applies bigtime on this one

if these Brisdudes do shaft everyones cash off them and send a few hundred families to the wall it will affect the next generations of all these families as well  ---- the social issues alone could end up costing the government more than the whole shabang is worth ----- depression; medical issues; hell what does it cost the community if 2or 3 people suicide because of this nonsense and ill take pretty slim odds that will end up happening ----  

nuff ranting from me anyway ---


----------



## Sunder (23 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Cartman said:


> we all know there are consequences --- what im saying is you wouldnt want your neighbours knocking on your door everyday telling you why kidz shouldnt run on the road --- it serves very little purpose ----




Fair enough. 

I just feel our society is coming to the point where anytime something bad happens, someone must be at fault, and someone must pay. 

Sometimes, the dice do just come up double ones, and everyone loses. 

The sooner we realise this, the sooner we'll clear our courts of vexatious and frivilous litigation cases. 

Let's leave it at that, shall we? It seems I have made my point clear, and you have a valid point as well.


----------



## Cartman (23 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> The sooner we realise this, the sooner we'll clear our courts of vexatious and frivilous litigation cases.
> ...




yeah no worries  lets just hope the powers that be can sort the whole mess out


----------



## rocket12 (23 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> If it were me, I wouldn't just be accepting that from S. & G.   Imo Comsec have failed to provide proper disclosure in not clearly stating on the Buy screen that there is another $2 to pay.
> 
> As we've already discussed, NAB and E-trade are in the clear over this if what's available on their websites now mirrors what was available when the affected shareholders bought.
> 
> ...




Personally, I have talked to a few lawers over the phone mainly about the shelf companty stuff, asset protection etc, I have given a couple of them more of a background as to what has gone on and they have indicated we have a path to follow.  I didnt wish to sit down however with a lawer and get things rolling on my own.

Quite a few of us now the have hooked up via this forum will be engaging a lawyer in the new year, I am trying to get one of the big gun lawyers M & B but they are so busy pre chrissy, and don't come back until the new year.  So will have to wait to make an appointment.  Once we have a case started we can get a heap of others to join in with us.  Unlike the S & G route none of us want to sue anybody, we just want it proved we don't have a liablity.


----------



## Prospector (23 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

OK, Sunder, there is also a concept of 'just penalty' too. 

MCQ promoted their wonderous distribution, then suddenly, as the :fan then the distribution gets canned. The SP tanks and suddenly there is no market to sell the shares.  These events are highly unusual, (in fact, has it ever happened before that you just cant sell your shares, other than a trading halt)  And that is solely because of this liability.

I am sure the holders would give away these shares, and another $10,000 with it!  But they cant!  And that is what takes this situation above and beyond ANY other.  They cannot sell the shares they bought AND they have this god-dammned liability. The normal laws of your 'someone has to pay for this and it should be the buyers' is just not on!


----------



## sails (23 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> I'll put my money where my mouth is - I believe the first person to pay for this debacle are BCSCA shareholders, then Underwriters, then the government. Since I am not a BCSCA shareholder, I miss round one, since I'm not a MQG shareholder, I miss round two. Since NSW is a net contributor to QLD taxes, I'll pay in round three. How's that? Totally consistent with my view.
> 
> I'm not sure why people are still harping on about "have a heart" "Put yourself in their shoes". You can be sympathetic, while still upholding principles of justice. I am not saying that people "deserve" what's coming to them. I'm saying that people will rightly face what's coming to them. In cases of tradgedy, justice does not always mean everyone comes out scathed only to their degree of complicity, nor does it mean everyone wears the burden evenly.
> 
> ...




Sunder, I'm not a bcsca holder either, however, I do see this situation differently to your analogy.   If it was a brand new electrical lead that was faulty and caused the damage you describe, it would be a different story.

My analogy is more along the lines of a very deep but narrow hole that has been dug in a track used by a only few people.  While it was initially dug for an apparently excellent reason, those that created this hole don't want it anymore and neither do their wealthy investors.  

It is going to cost too much to fill the hole, so they have all decided to conceal it as best they can.  As an added bonus, anyone falling into their trap will have to give up everything to pay the little they do own to the creators of this mess.  


So, in my analogy, the victims previously had used the same track for many years before and had no reason to suspect there was a trap.  Worse still, the trap was created by wealthy people who are better positioned to recover from their losses than trying to eek out a few tiddlywinks from the unsuspecting victims.

In this situation, it appears on the surface that BrisC, Macquarie, the ASX (linked by Trevor Rowe) and possibly some brokers are fully aware of this bcsca trap for small investors/traders and yet are not prepared to even put a simple fence around it by at least disallowing online trading of this share.  It is ironic that  someone earlier in this thread said they were able to buy online but had to make a phone call to sell.  It shows it can be done - so why isn't it?

At current levels, bcsca is totally different to anything I have seen in share trading due to it's exceptionally low share price which attracts those that don't have much to begin with.  Also, it costs so little to buy millions of these shares leaving liabilities that only institutional type investors are equipped to handle.

What I see is wrong is that *those who have the power to stop the little people falling in their trap are choosing not to *-appears they actually want these victims in their trap - apparently caring not about the lives of these people - their children, their grandchildren.  Some may have illness or be struggling with other difficulties in life.  

Sunder, I know you don't agree that these folks are victims, but IMHO it is a very grey area when prevention could have been put in place to ensure those investing in this project were suitably heeled.

It may not be illegal, but IMO it does seem incredibly unfair and immoral...

My  - food for thought...


----------



## Bushie (23 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I had a thought, in Sunday's Telegraph was an article about Kevin Rudd injecting 450 million dollars or so into reducing & preventing homelessness in the next 4 years. Well, we may/will have homelessness thrust upon us if this all goes pearshaped. Why don't we offer the shares to the Federal Govt, as a gift, to stop us from becoming homeless, wouldn't that work?  That would be under the umbrella of preventing homelessness is effect. It will only cost us a postage stamp to try anyway.


----------



## Rastan (23 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

FWIW I feel like adding my  into this. Without going into too much of a sob story, I only started investing 3 months before the big bang and have lost more than half of my entire life savings due to margin lending and really, really bad timing (and a lack of experience which is essentially what I have now paid for). But even with my gung ho attitude, when I saw these bargain shares my 'too good to be true' alarm went off and so I at least did a google and ASF search before buying and found out about the debt thing. Although in retrospect this could be put down to luck as much as smarts, but like I said, I felt the old 'if something seems to good to be true' and did a 5 second search (also because I new that I was so inexperienced and was dealing with a complex thing [i.e. tghe fin markets]).

So my heart truly does go out to you guys that are caught up in this (I have already lost my investment property to the margin loan). I can see both sides of the story however: if you bought the shares blah, blah, blah as Sunder says and I can see his point. But I also can see that you can not normallly get a million $ debt so easily. I would hope that it is that point that you could argue best in a law court, that you really werent aware of what you were getting into (and the pundits will argue that ignorance isnt a defence).

I hope the legal way plays out and the little battlers don't get done for all, but if I were in the boat i would seriously be considering what awg mentioned; i.e. selling a whole stack off to someone who doesn't mind going bankrupt. I don't know if the ASX will be happy with whichever broker organises the transaction (as you wouldnt just be able to sell them on the market), but surely you could find someone who will 'buy' the shares and wont be able to 'pay' the payment.

It seems sleazy and morally wrong for good reason I suppose, but if it were my entiore life savings and house etc on the line I would agree with the morals of taking it all just because of buying $500 worth of shares. Like I said, I hope it wouldn't come to it, but if it were me its an avenue that I certainly would not discount.


----------



## Julia (23 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Bushie, that suggestion raises the question of taking your plight to your local MP (federal).  Anyone done this?


----------



## Rastan (23 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

and as a P.S. - why in gods name is the ASX still allowing this to be traded on the open market? Surely sales of this stock should be of an 'organised' matter for the near future, to stop anyone from unwising falling into this terrible hole...


----------



## rocket12 (23 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Rastan said:


> FWIW I feel like adding my  into this. Without going into too much of a sob story, I only started investing 3 months before the big bang and have lost more than half of my entire life savings due to margin lending and really, really bad timing (and a lack of experience which is essentially what I have now paid for). But even with my gung ho attitude, when I saw these bargain shares my 'too good to be true' alarm went off and so I at least did a google and ASF search before buying and found out about the debt thing. Although in retrospect this could be put down to luck as much as smarts, but like I said, I felt the old 'if something seems to good to be true' and did a 5 second search (also because I new that I was so inexperienced and was dealing with a complex thing [i.e. tghe fin markets]).
> 
> So my heart truly does go out to you guys that are caught up in this (I have already lost my investment property to the margin loan). I can see both sides of the story however: if you bought the shares blah, blah, blah as Sunder says and I can see his point. But I also can see that you can not normallly get a million $ debt so easily. I would hope that it is that point that you could argue best in a law court, that you really werent aware of what you were getting into (and the pundits will argue that ignorance isnt a defence).
> 
> ...




Hi, good to hear from someone who almost bought but investigated further.  Obviously thousands over the past 6 months have fallen for this, but thousands also would have looked into it further.  Well done in that regard and sorry to hear of your bad luck with your other ventures, I hope it turns around for you...


----------



## awg (23 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

i dont think you even need a brokerage of any kind to arrange an "off-market TX".

I believe all necessary arrangements can be completed via the share registry.

at no cost

an SRN will then be assigned to the new owner.

i think it would be wise to ensure the payment was completed electronically by debit from account to account, for proof of genuine transfer.

I dont think it would be wise to use someone who is already bankrupt, as this may not be legal.

I doubt bankruptcy/legal action would be pursued against a derelict.

you just need to start scouring the railway stations/hostels.

sounds terrible I know, and I would only even consider it myself, if i felt sure the person understood that their would be a downside, but they still wanted the cash NOW bad enough.

I know for a fact $2000 ( for instance) would be a fortune for some people.

any sort of legal matter would bleed you dry

I could be incorrect about some of the above statements.

I reiterate, I do not recommend this approach, as such, and would definitely seek legal advice before I went down this track, as well as soul-searching, I only put forward the notion as a possibility


----------



## Bushie (23 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> Bushie, that suggestion raises the question of taking your plight to your local MP (federal).  Anyone done this?




Yes Julia, I have made contact with both Qld Govt MP & Federal Govt MP, they are both pursueing it from their positions. I have suggested to any others caught to do the same as weight of numbers will help in this case.


----------



## rocket12 (23 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> Though to add to that, when I went through the online beginners to shares course that was linked to in that risk section, it does cover the types of shares and in particular mentions contributing shares with these comments:
> 
> _ Contributing shares
> 
> ...




Hi, I've been trying to find that section for a week now can you indicate what links to follow to find it please.  I have found this page but no mention.
http://www.asx.com.au/products/shares/getting_started/sharemarket_basics.htm#What_are_shares


----------



## thermalmonster (26 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I thought of listing mine on e-bay

But my concience wouldnt let me


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> I thought of listing mine on e-bay
> 
> But my concience wouldnt let me




One tactic you folk could employ is simple but costs a few dollars.

Buy up as many Brisconnect shares as you can.

An old adage in banking circles is that the more you owe the safer you are.

Actually increasing your holdings may make you safer from the Macquarie Bank hemlock.

gg


----------



## Julia (26 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> One tactic you folk could employ is simple but costs a few dollars.
> 
> Buy up as many Brisconnect shares as you can.
> 
> ...



Good Lord, gg, that seems incredibly risky!

To the Brisconnections shareholders here, I guess you wouldn't have had much of a Christmas.  Do hope the new year will bring some encouraging news.  Keep on at your MP's, especially the Qld State one.  Maybe also a letter to Ms Bligh?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> Good Lord, gg, that seems incredibly risky!
> 
> To the Brisconnections shareholders here, I guess you wouldn't have had much of a Christmas.  Do hope the new year will bring some encouraging news.  Keep on at your MP's, especially the Qld State one.  Maybe also a letter to Ms Bligh?




Not a bit Julia.

I was once in a business turning over many millions. The banks endured my overdrafts and risky punts with pleasure.

I then temporarily semi retired, lay on the beach and had to queue up with the masses.

The difference in how they dealt with me was amusing and amazing.

So Brisconn holders, one option for you would to buy up, buy often and buy big.

Another option is to have Macquarie heavies come for your Holden or doona.

The more you owe the safer you are.

gg


----------



## TheAbyss (26 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> One tactic you folk could employ is simple but costs a few dollars.
> 
> Buy up as many Brisconnect shares as you can.
> 
> ...





Groves and co will caution you that eventually the banks will come a calling and demand their pound of flesh. If they can shut down the likes of MFS ABC Madoff etc then a few mums and dads will get taken out fairly casually.

GG i trust you were not really serious in recommending that increasing yiur holding ere would offer any shred of protection?

I do understand where you are coming from however the difference is that if there is not a cash machine (ie a going concern that will generate revenues) backing up the investors then the banks will cut their losses and shut anyone they like down. Only reason they will leave you in tact is if they can see a return in the future somewhere which would not be the case here.


----------



## thermalmonster (26 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Q

If they take you to the cleaners do you still own your shares?

or are you paying for somthing that you dont own?

Like, (uk) if you were to get repossesed by your mortgage lender the house would have some worth or future worth. The bank could not legaly sell it for less than it is worth, you could contest a stupid price.
You then would have to pay any shortfall once the house was sold.

Therefore perhaps if you (partly) own a million shares in BCSCA perhaps you would be more likely to be able to pay your liability once the market improves? in 2- 5 years time.

Your asset or potential to be able to repay that debt hangs in the success of BCSCA. So what does Trevor Rowe say " The company will make substantial profits whithin the next 5- 7 years."
In that case there best option is to defer any legal proceedings until such time as the company is worth somthing. They have much more chance of recovering the money.
so therefore once the share price exceeded $3.200 you would be able to pay your debt with interest !!! If BCSCA dont believe the share price will ever exceed that amount then the whole bunch of them ought to resign now !!!


----------



## grace (26 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

If going down the bankruptcy path, or wanting information, please refer to

www.itsa.gov.au

Insolvency & Trustee Service Austalia

If I recall rightly, a law firm by the name of Fox Symes (is that right?) does a lot of that sought of thing (although one can fill out the forms yourself).  

Lifeline have personnel trained in the bankruptcy area which would cost you nothing for some information.  They are busy in that area at the moment because of our current financial climate.

I recall a rule where transfers of assets made within a certain timeframe before applying for bankruptcy are not valid transfers.  In this case, I'm unsure how a transfer of these shares would be treated, and way above my area of knowledge.

Not sure if any of the above is helpful, but there are plenty of rules in relation to bankruptcy.

You can call itsa, and ask for a Bankruptcy pack.


----------



## thermalmonster (26 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/CHEAP-SHARES...ItemQQimsxZ20081225?IMSfp=TL081225124001r1217


Ha Ha someone has already listed their shares on ebay !!!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



TheAbyss said:


> Groves and co will caution you that eventually the banks will come a calling and demand their pound of flesh. If they can shut down the likes of MFS ABC Madoff etc then a few mums and dads will get taken out fairly casually.
> 
> GG i trust you were not really serious in recommending that increasing yiur holding ere would offer any shred of protection?
> 
> I do understand where you are coming from however the difference is that if there is not a cash machine (ie a going concern that will generate revenues) backing up the investors then the banks will cut their losses and shut anyone they like down. Only reason they will leave you in tact is if they can see a return in the future somewhere which would not be the case here.




they are shares like any others on the asx.

buy/sell all reasonable tactics.

hold equally.

they are a dog share though.

if I won the lotto I'd buy every one I could get my hands on.

the banks will be able to bankrupt a few hundred simple souls who bought cluelessly, but a hundred million they would not have the gumption for.

gg


----------



## thermalmonster (26 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hey GG

You dont have to win the Lotto to by them you fool

I reckon you could by 99,00000 of them for bugger all.

I tell you what I will give you mine for nowt, hows that sound.
If you are realy desperate for some theres a guy on ebay selling 775,000 of them but he is charging $349 buy it now.

,.... now why has he not got any bids??????


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> Hey GG
> 
> You dont have to win the Lotto to by them you fool
> 
> ...




how many you got  pm me mate 

gg

also anyone else

gg


----------



## thermalmonster (26 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

13,520 shares Free to a good Home


----------



## thermalmonster (26 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

In all seriousness what I cant get my head around is that not even the main banks are prepared to by the shares at 0.001 when 12 months ago they were $0.720 
Un real that anything could be that bad an investment.
BCSA have shot themselves in their own Foot.... sorry Brain with this one.


----------



## Sunder (26 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> http://cgi.ebay.com.au/CHEAP-SHARES...ItemQQimsxZ20081225?IMSfp=TL081225124001r1217
> 
> 
> Ha Ha someone has already listed their shares on ebay !!!




Someone needs to report this sale. They are probably even more deceptive than a broker, since they don't even mention the security code.


----------



## Jayan (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I feel really sorry that some of you have gotten into this debarcle.
I don't own personal shares, gave up the stock market as just a casino many years ago. So not a MAQ shareholder either...

BUT
I am a Qld tax payer and since I had no hand in any of this, I don't think the Qld Gov owes anyone anything. Don't make this our problem, it's NOT!



If you want to play on the stockmarket, you have to be responsible for the outcome and what that entails, if this was a dollar spinner, you would all be happy to pocket the gains. It's gone bad, very sad and sorry to hear that but it's a problem belonging to you each that bought, the company and the under writer. 

Rocket said on Page 2


> There are only 3 shares in the whole industrials sector that are contributing shares, they are not common, so you would think that they would make this fact far more obvious.




Bing Bing ...
You think anyone trading shares would stop right there, if there are ONLY 3 trading as contributing shares, where were your warning bells that these are different?

Even I would have done a bit of research at that stage and not jumped right in. It boils down again to buyer beware.

Hope it works out for you BUT it's NOT Qld's problem


----------



## storchyman (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Wont BCS have a lot of money in the bank, and be worth something more than nothing, if / when the $1 is payed up by the holders?

or is there a big debt or something I'm missing here?


----------



## Prospector (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Someone needs to report this sale. They are probably even more deceptive than a broker, since they don't even mention the security code.





Is this sale by an ASF person?


----------



## Sunder (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



storchyman said:


> Wont BCS have a lot of money in the bank, and be worth something more than nothing, if / when the $1 is payed up by the holders?
> 
> or is there a big debt or something I'm missing here?




Yep, but the market is essentially saying the share will be worth less than $1, after $1 is paid. So buying shares in it right now, basically means you might be receiving 0.1c for every dollar you put in. Bargain, hey?

One way to think of it, is that while they have no monetary debts, they have a "debt" to the QLD govt to build a road - a road which the market does not believe is worth what it costs to build, and won't return enough revenue through tolls to make it worth the initial investment


----------



## skc (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

OMG... someone just bought the shares at ebay!!

Merry Xmas to the seller. Not so happy new year for the buyer!

I wonder how legally binding is this ebay transaction??


----------



## thermalmonster (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Once the buyer has signed the paperwork I guess its as legaly binding as ours are off comsec. Whats the difference.

Fair play to the seller becuase that was my Idea!!


----------



## julius (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Jesus christ what a f*cking nightmare.

Why doesn't Brisconnections offer a share buy-back, where they buy the outstanding partially-paid shares back for $0.00 ?


----------



## grace (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



skc said:


> OMG... someone just bought the shares at ebay!!
> 
> Merry Xmas to the seller. Not so happy new year for the buyer!
> 
> I wonder how legally binding is this ebay transaction??




I see the small print disclosure under the ebay listing as follows...




> Trading in financial products involves the risk of loss. Any purchaser who agrees to purchase these units does so at their own risk and forever holds harmless the seller from any loss or damage the purchaser may suffer.




Could this really be binding?


----------



## Prospector (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



skc said:


> OMG... someone just bought the shares at ebay!!
> 
> Merry Xmas to the seller. Not so happy new year for the buyer!
> 
> I wonder how legally binding is this ebay transaction??




It is sus!  This is the first thing that bidder has bought, you really think a newbie to ebay would buy shares as their first ebay purchase?  I think someone has worked out how to offload their shares...


----------



## cuttlefish (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> It is sus!  This is the first thing that bidder has bought, you really think a newbie to ebay would buy shares as their first ebay purchase?  I think someone has worked out how to offload their shares...






Here's a theory on this - someone sells them via ebay ... the ebay buyer gets the lawyers in and sues the seller/gets the sale annulled.  The seller now has a test case as an example to use to defend their own original purchase via the asx.


----------



## chops_a_must (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> Once the buyer has signed the paperwork I guess its as legaly binding as ours are off comsec. Whats the difference.
> 
> Fair play to the seller becuase that was my Idea!!




Any bets it was this guy?


----------



## Sunder (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> It is sus!  This is the first thing that bidder has bought, you really think a newbie to ebay would buy shares as their first ebay purchase?  I think someone has worked out how to offload their shares...




The buyer has a 5 year history and 100-499 positive rating, 100% positive


----------



## Sunder (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Just found this:



> Stocks and Other Securities
> 
> The sale of stock or other securities is not permitted on eBay.
> 
> ...


----------



## thermalmonster (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

No Its not me.
However I have just listed them as a test piece. I had the idea a week ago but did not act on it.
However I have disclosed much more information than that was dislclosed to me by comsec.
I wonder if someone will buy them.
Either way, you still will have to get them to fill in the paper work afterwards


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I still reckon if you guys would pay me enough to buy them , I'd be in like Flynn.

gg


----------



## thermalmonster (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

So Sunder and all you other people who have blamed our ignorance in bying these Toxic shares,
You Think its wrong for us to sell them on ebay,  But its ok for the ASX and COMSEC to sell them to us ???

I tell you what, The buyer of my shares has much more information and warning than I recieved and probably more protection.

and for the record I will be de- listing my sale. Just wanted to prove a point that anyone can fall into this Trap that some of you are too Holey er than though to fall into.
Jim


----------



## thermalmonster (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

so you keep Saying GG ! and that e-bay sale was just a Troll, Pretty much like yourself.


----------



## chops_a_must (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> So Sunder and all you other people who have blamed our ignorance in bying these Toxic shares,
> You Think its wrong for us to sell them on ebay,  But its ok for the ASX and COMSEC to sell them to us ???
> 
> I tell you what, The buyer of my shares has much more information and warning than I recieved and probably more protection.
> ...




Yes.

You have proven to be no better than them. In fact, exactly the same.

So I doubt you will be getting much sympathy on here.


----------



## Panacea (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



skc said:


> OMG... someone just bought the shares at ebay!!




Can't wait to read the feedback on this one.


----------



## Sunder (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> So Sunder and all you other people who have blamed our ignorance in bying these Toxic shares,




If you put the same amount of information as Comsec, no. That is, you must say the share is BCSCA, and is $1 Paid. 

Other than that, only the fact that eBay prohibits the sale of shares is the only other wrong bit.


----------



## thermalmonster (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Dont Talk Trash!

I have sold No shares on ebay neither do I intend to do so,  Just stating the fact that anyone could have got mixed up with this Lunacy!


----------



## thermalmonster (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I wonder what his returns policy is?
Did he charge for posting?


----------



## Sunder (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

No, not quite, to get caught up in this lunacy, a person must be:

1. A gambler, not even a speculator, let alone an investor.

2. Failed to do their own research

3. Missed all the media, including on the broker's site, regarding this security.

That's not quite just anyone.


----------



## thermalmonster (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

So you think it is right for someone who has never invested in the Australian stockmarket to chuck $500 on a transaction and wind up with a $1M debt hanging over his head ???? 
What kind of law and society lets that happen?
To destroy peoples lives in that manner.
The Casino and pokies are gambles mate and so too the stock market we dont doubt, however when you loose $500 on betting you dont expect a further $1M debt for the privilage.

Im done with this Forum and the attitude of some of the Punters.
My heart sincerly goes out to Bushie & Rocket and others who have ben caught up in this like myself. Especialy those with family and children. 
No one would have bought theese shares knowing that there was this debt hanging over them. 
Hopefuly the Next time I post justice will have been done!

Bushie & Rocket I am with you all the way
Be strong, lets work together,lets make it happen


----------



## thermalmonster (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

P.S  For the record

My shares  were listed on e-bay for 30 mins under Thermalmonster for 13,520 shares. Then de listed 

I do not own 775,00 shares and did not List them. I have no idea who this person is or if he/she has genuinely sold them. I discovered them on e-bay when I typed in a search for Brisconnections and posted the link on this Forum.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> So you think it is right for someone who has never invested in the Australian stockmarket to chuck $500 on a transaction and wind up with a $1M debt hanging over his head ????
> What kind of law and society lets that happen?
> To destroy peoples lives in that manner.
> The Casino and pokies are gambles mate and so too the stock market we dont doubt, however when you loose $500 on betting you dont expect a further $1M debt for the privilage.
> ...





You are toast mate.

Justice has nothing to do with trading.

Its a zero sum game.

You lose, someone else wins.

If you don't like it or can't hack it stay out of the game.

Don't expose your family to risk you cannot handle.

Caveat Emptor.

google it.

gg


----------



## Julia (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



chops_a_must said:


> Yes.
> 
> You have proven to be no better than them. In fact, exactly the same.
> 
> So I doubt you will be getting much sympathy on here.



This seems a bit harsh, especially considering the strain any BCSCA owners are under.
I, for one, have considerable sympathy for any of these people.
Haven't you ever made a mistake, Chops?  I've made plenty but fortunately they didn't have the repercussions of potentially ruining my life.


----------



## Jayan (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I have sympathy UNTIL the people who made the original mistake are then more than happy to drag anyone else into it to save their own butt.


----------



## chops_a_must (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> This seems a bit harsh, especially considering the strain any BCSCA owners are under.
> I, for one, have considerable sympathy for any of these people.
> Haven't you ever made a mistake, Chops?  I've made plenty but fortunately they didn't have the repercussions of potentially ruining my life.






Jayan said:


> I have sympathy UNTIL the people who made the original mistake are then more than happy to drag anyone else into it to save their own butt.



Precisely.

Julia, of course I've made mistakes.

But what gets me about this is that these people seem to be no better than the organisations that got them in the first place.

Scamming other people after having been scammed yourself, and then trying to claim that commsec et al shouldn't do what they do is pretty rich.

What needs to happen is lawyers get an injunction and are able to delay the payment date. These people need good commercial legal advice. Getting other unsuspecting victims in on this is not good and reeks of double standards.


----------



## Julia (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



chops_a_must said:


> Precisely.
> 
> Julia, of course I've made mistakes.
> 
> ...




If that had actually happened, then of course you are right.
But Thermalmonster made it clear he'd "listed" the shares as, I gathered, an experiment, and withdrawn the offer.

  It also appears that subsequent paperwork needs to be done to validate any sale which could have occurred.

I might be wrong, but the impression I had was that what T/monster did was pretty similar to my doing a pretend BCSCA order on E-trade just to see if the $2 to be paid info came up before actually completing the Buy order.
I had no intention of completing the order.


----------



## chops_a_must (27 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> If that had actually happened, then of course you are right.
> But Thermalmonster made it clear he'd "listed" the shares as, I gathered, an experiment, and withdrawn the offer.
> 
> It also appears that subsequent paperwork needs to be done to validate any sale which could have occurred.
> ...




All well and good, but:

1) He supported the person doing it.

2) A whole lot of difference checking out info on etrade compared to potentially seeing if it can be done by ebay.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I must state that parkies and derros have been unfairly targeted in this debate.

Many of these folk are like you and I, with dreams and expectations for their and  fanilies future.

Bad luck, addiction or mental illness have left them to fend on the streets.

Pease do not inflict your poor investment decisions on them.

Day to day existence is a trial for them.

They do not need Macquarie after them.

gg


----------



## thermalmonster (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Absolutely Julia,

Just to proove how easy it is for ANYONE who has no understanding of stocks & shares can get hooked up in this Fraud.

I cant put my mind to anything else on this earth that with a $500 investment could wind you up with a $1M debt.... without any intention.
yes people should do research ect, I am one that didnt look into it.
However the fact it has been allowed to happen without significant warning and double checking is wrong. Regardless of whos to blame.
The Fact that even after all the publicity people are STILL getting caught up in this, and the the culprits still getting away with it!!


----------



## thermalmonster (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

BCSCA shares are listed on COMSEC as   Inquiry

What does this mean?


----------



## Prospector (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> The buyer has a 5 year history and 100-499 positive rating, 100% positive




Nope, when I checked they had zero history.


----------



## lesm (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> BCSCA shares are listed on COMSEC as   Inquiry
> 
> What does this mean?




BCSCA along with every other stock is in this category on Comsec.

The market is closed.

Do you understand the market phases or for that matter, much of anything about the operation of the ASX or share trading/investing in general??


----------



## Prospector (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Well, it seems that Ebay caught up with the sale because it is now no longer available.  Sales are viewable for 90 days after closure but this one has gone.

Imagine if the sale had been made to a teenager, as ebay doesn't impose age restrictions.


----------



## awg (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



skc said:


> OMG... someone just bought the shares at ebay!!
> 
> Merry Xmas to the seller. Not so happy new year for the buyer!
> 
> I wonder how legally binding is this ebay transaction??





hey ladies & gents,

you can buy or sell  items on ebay, but that does not mean spit until the title is transferred via the share registry or a broker.

that means the seller would still be the legal holder.

as ebay has a policy prohibiting share sales, it would not be legally binding in anyway (unless someone was stupid enough to complete the transfer documentation)


----------



## lesm (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> Absolutely Julia,
> 
> Just to proove how easy it is for ANYONE who has no understanding of stocks & shares can get hooked up in this Fraud.
> 
> ...




If you are going to make unsubstantiated allegations, such as those above, you really should be getting good legal advice. Would suggest you seek advice from one of the top legal firms.

It is pure supposition on your part that all persons buying BCSCA are not aware of the nature of the share or the attached laibility. While it may be true of some it is not necesarily true of all. Some people actually undertake a modicum of research before purchasing shares.

You need to maintain a level of objectivity, including focussing on relevant matters and facts rather than emotions or wild allegations.

Try taking at least a minimum level of responsibility for your actions rather than trying to blame other parites or look for excuses. You have already admitted that you didn't undertake any research related to BCSCA. The Comsec basic service provides a no frills non-advisory service, which places some emphasis and responsibility back on yourself to do some basic research.

This appears to be a situation that neither the ASX or ASIC envisioned would occur in the equities market. In that, naive investors/traders would blindly buy shares in the market, with little or no research or even a basic understanding of the codes used and their implications. Even the ASA uses the term 'naive investors'.

The situation is exacerbated due to no active market for the concerned share, which effectively traps the shareholders wanting to sell their shares. This has similarities to day traders caught in the market when a stock goes into a trading halt or is suspended.

In terms of your allegation of fraud.

If you consider that BCS issued an IPO in accordance with the relevant laws, regulations and approvals, on what basis has fraud been committed on its part?

The online brokers provided a service that they provide every trading day of the week, where buyers and sellers enter their orders and are automatically matched via the ITS system, on what basis has fraud been committed on their part?

Maybe it was the sellers who assumed that the buyers actually understood what a contributing share was and that they (the buyers) knew what liabilities they were taking on. Maybe you think the sellers perpetrated the fraud.

There is a distinct difference between alleging improper or non-disclosure of pertinent facts, as opposed to an allegation of fraud. 

The information that you required to make an informed decision was actually available on the Comsec site. While it may not have been readily apparent from the 'deal ticket' it was available under the 'Announcement Section' of the site. An obvious announcement to look at is entitled 'Investor Presentation'.

What is not clear, of the affected shareholders using online brokers that displayed '$1 Paid $2 Unpaid', is how many of them still went ahead and purchased the shares anyway, without understanding the implications.

What is interesting about this situation is how many of the buyers actually knew about the liability or did not know about the liability, but were speculating/gambling on a 'dead-cat bounce' or increase in share price to make some fast dollars. They never realised that the situation could occur where the market in the share could dry up and they would not be able to sell their shares, ultimately becoming trapped.

Some of the speculators/gamblers caught in this manner will jump on the bandwagon, of those who actually made a naive mistake, hoping that any ensuing legal action or negotiations may get them off the hook.

If the ASA, ASX, ASIC, BCS or its underwriters cannot work out a way forward that is equitable to all affected parties and it subsequently goes to court in any manner or form it will be interesting, as to how it proceeds and the final outcome.

If 'caveat emptor' is considered to apply, then this will be an expensive mistake for the affected parties.

I have a split view on this situation.

For those naive investors who made an error through lack of research or market knowledge, I sympathise with your plight and wish you well, but there are no guarantees as to how this will pan out in the end.

For those speculators/gamblers that were trying to make a fast dollar and have been trapped (a market risk has been realised) due to their greed, I have no sympathy at all.


----------



## thermalmonster (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

No lesm, I dont understand the market very much at all.
I have never invested in anything in my life other than my super.
But I know that you shouldnt be able to sign up for a million dollas worth of debt before being vetted.
Its called iresponsibility.

Look, whilst I agree with your comments about others who new about the future installments jumping on the band waggon ect, And I hold my hands up to not doing the research, But it is still wrong!!

Ive only been in the country for 6 months!! and fall in to this trap, because instead of putting my dough in the bank I thought invest in a project that the company I am working for is contracted to build. I thought I was being Prudent !!
Didnt think for a minuite about possible future commitments.

If there was somthing on COMSEC which stated I was Liable for a further $2.00 / share I simply would not have ordered them.
Also if this was disclosed properly there would have been no Grey area for people to be able to jump on the band waggon so to speak.
The Fact that this information is not Forthcoming to the Layman is fundementaly wrong.
If you were to conduct a risk assesment , there is a high risk that someone could get caught, and the consequence of the risk fatal.
We are not all Stockmarket Gurus  and the relevant companies should have measures in place to protect Joe Public !!   Duty of care


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> No lesm, I dont understand the market very much at all.
> I have never invested in anything in my life other than my super.
> But I know that you shouldnt be able to sign up for a million dollas worth of debt before being vetted.
> Its called iresponsibility.
> ...




Tough as it may sound mate, if you did not understand the market you should not have been in it.

Its a bit like going to a Jap market selling veggies you know nothing about and not knowing the value of the yen.

You buggered up.

Learn from it and move on.

gg


----------



## thermalmonster (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Oh, I have learnt from it all right
my amount of liability shouldnt be enough to bankrupt me, but it doesnt make it right, I actualy bought the shares when they were still worth something!!
Worse case scenario I will have to borrow 10K  pay the first installment and sell ASAP and pay the loan off.

The Ironic bit will be when I apply to Comsec for the Loan !

However I will still fight this tooth and nail with the poor buggers that owe Millions because Im a man of principal, and in this case the principal is wrong.

Still you must admit it is probably the most interesting Thread you stockmarket dudes must have had for a long while!

Cant wait to see what pans out.............


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> Oh, I have learnt from it all right
> my amount of liability shouldnt be enough to bankrupt me, but it doesnt make it right, I actualy bought the shares when they were still worth something!!
> Worse case scenario I will have to borrow 10K  pay the first installment and sell ASAP and pay the loan off.
> 
> ...




Mate we've all been caught out one time or another.

One good option is to go bankrupt and start off again.

gg


----------



## sails (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

IMO, Joe Public should probably be denied permission to trade these types of instalment shares online until relevant trading approval has been granted. 

Joe Public does not have permission trade ETOs and warrants without signing documentation stating he/she has read the relevant educational material and that the risks involved are fully understood.  Perhaps stapled securities and the like should require similar trading approvals in the future.

What has made this situation so bad is that it costs so little to rattle up millions in future debt.  If bcsca were trading around $1, Joe Public punters with $500 to spend would only get 500 shares as and a more reasonable liability of $1000 in the future.  And the market would most likely still be liquid, meaning shares can be sold before the next instalment.   

I can see both sides of the argument, but it would appear that the powers that be may not have considered the extraordinary risks to mum and dad investors in the unlikely event that an instalment share price would drop so low in relation to its future instalments as has happened in the case of bcsca.


----------



## Judd (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> .....But its ok for the ASX and COMSEC to sell them to us ???




That statement alone displays an extraordinary level of ignorance indicating you should not have gone anywhere near the sharemarket.  In very simple terms neither the ASX nor Commsec sold the shares to you.

What I find baffling is:


how in the heck did people actually find these obscure shares in the first place and why didn't that fact start the alarm bells going off in the grey matter;

when the largest of companies are listed on the ASX under a three alpha code why looking at something with a five alpha code didn't cause the potential buyer to go "Whoa, there Trigger."

Anyway, the situation most find themselves in is down to greed.  "Wow, if this goes from $0.01 to $0.02, I'll double my money."  It probably wont and those who have bought have got burnt and some are looking to blame someone.  Maybe they should look in the mirror for that.

I know that is cruel but I have been dealing with a lot of people who, when things go wrong, wish to place the blame at the feet of another.  They don't like it very much when I say that there is no one else but then I don't like it very much when they wont take responsibility for their own actions.  I'm kind of over it.


----------



## Prospector (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Judd said:


> how in the heck did people actually find these obscure shares in the first place and why didn't that fact start the alarm bells going off in the grey matter;
> 
> when the largest of companies are listed on the ASX under a three alpha code why looking at something with a five alpha code didn't cause the potential buyer to go "Whoa, there Trigger."




I think Thermalmonster works for Thiess who are involved in building the project. So hardly obscure for him.  I have bought options (a five letter code) but the unique issue with BCSCA is that

There are no buyers at all
Buying the options came with an additional liability; with other options you can simply let them lapse and all you lose is your original outlay
The price tanked; people outlaying very small amounts of money - $500 - incur a multi million dollar debt.

There has never been anything like this before.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> I think Thermalmonster works for Thiess who are involved in building the project. So hardly obscure for him.  I have bought options (a five letter code) but the unique issue with BCSCA is that
> 
> There are no buyers at all
> Buying the options came with an additional liability; with other options you can simply let them lapse and all you lose is your original outlay
> ...




Its called capitalism.

And it happens daily.

Get real.

gg


----------



## sails (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Its called capitalism.
> 
> And it happens daily.
> 
> ...




Capitalism may happen daily - but this appears to be rather unique.

I think I read that Thermal has about 13,000 shares.  Their total value would be $13 at today's price of $0.001 and incurs a future $26,000 debt. 

Now, that doesn't happen daily.


----------



## Prospector (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Its called capitalism.
> 
> And it happens daily.
> 
> ...




Are you for real?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> Capitalism may happen daily - but this appears to be rather unique.
> 
> I think I read that Thermal has about 13,000 shares.  Their total value would be $13 at today's price of $0.001 and incurs a future $26,000 debt.
> 
> Now, that doesn't happen daily.






Prospector said:


> Are you for real?




Go into business mates.

Rent a place.

Have employees.

Try to satisfy customers.

Have the banks on your back.

Stand in a shop with a stock value of $2m and have 3 people walk per day  in and say I'm just browsing.

And smile.


That is what a mate of mine is doing at present.

It is capitalism.

These silly Brisconnect folk are getting off lightly.

gg


----------



## chops_a_must (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> No lesm, I dont understand the market very much at all.
> I have never invested in anything in my life other than my super.
> 
> Its called iresponsibility.
> ...



Honestly. 



Prospector said:


> I think Thermalmonster works for Thiess who are involved in building the project. So hardly obscure for him.  I have bought options (a five letter code) but the unique issue with BCSCA is that
> 
> There are no buyers at all
> Buying the options came with an additional liability; with other options you can simply let them lapse and all you lose is your original outlay
> ...




These aren't options...


----------



## sails (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Go into business mates.
> 
> Rent a place.
> 
> ...




Done the business thing - rented a place - had employees
BUT we knew what the debt was upfront - *big difference*.

Your mate with a $2m debt would have signed contracts and known about the risks and associated costs before going into business.  While it is a terrible situation for your friend, it is hardly comparable to the unique situation with BrisC.  I can't see how that is comparing apples with apples...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> Done the business thing - rented a place - had employees
> BUT we knew what the debt was upfront - *big difference*.
> 
> Your mate with a $2m debt would have signed contracts and known about the risks and associated costs before going into business.  While it is a terrible situation for your friend, it is hardly comparable to the unique situation with BrisC.  I can't see how that is comparing apples with apples...




And your mates would not have read a newspaper for the previous six months,

Tough.

I feel sorry for them

But they have lost.

They were greedy and ignorant.

Greed I can cope with.

gg


----------



## sails (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> And your mates would not have read a newspaper for the previous six months,
> 
> Tough.
> 
> ...





Not my mates, gg - wouldn't know them if I fell over them.  

It's the principle of the thing.  From my perspective, it appears there may have been inadequate precautions in place for mum and dad type investors.

Fences are built in public places to stop the general public falling over cliffs, etc.  I don't see the difference.

A few months ago we took our daughter in who was in severe depression.  She came with her two daughters - one aged 18 months and one 9 yrs.  We have a small two bedroom unit, so it's been crowded.  She is slowly improving and we are hopeful now that the kids will have a more normal home life down the track.

gg, you may have handled this differently with your apparent hardline approach.  Sorry, but I have a heart.  Sometimes that also shows in expressing support for people I don't know.  

Anyway, I have more to do than continue this hopeless conversation.  You have your views and I have mine. 

Looks like we will never agree on this issue


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> Not my mates, gg - wouldn't know them if I fell over them.
> 
> It's the principle of the thing.  From my perspective, it appears there may have been inadequate precautions in place for mum and dad type investors.
> 
> ...






Callous as it may sound you need to separate investment decisions from life events.

I have a relative with mental illness and I agree it is difficult.


When one invests one takes on risk.

If you are ill informed then you may win or lose.

Greed lay at your decision to invest in Brisconnect

Blind Freddie would have known it was pit. AFR, Australian, Daily Telegraph WA News.

You were driven by your instincts and you lost.

Tough

cheerio

gg


----------



## sails (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Callous as it may sound you need to separate investment decisions from life events.
> 
> I have a relative with mental illness and I agree it is difficult.
> 
> ...




Sorry, not me.   As I have said before, I do not own bcsca shares and never have


----------



## mazzatelli1000 (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Callous as it may sound you need to separate investment decisions from life events.
> 
> I have a relative with mental illness and I agree it is difficult.
> 
> ...




You must be feeling good you dont own bcsca shares eh
All high and mighty there


----------



## grace (28 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



mazzatelli1000 said:


> You must be feeling good you dont own bcsca shares eh
> All high and mighty there




A lot of qld government employees have their super with qsuper (I think that is what it is called).  They have a very large exposure to Brisconnections.  They took quite a large holding on the float, and have the payments still to make.

A lot of people who have never heard of Brisconnections are going to be affected in a bad way when they read their super reports for the next few years.

It is one stock that I have read about in the newspaper from time to time.  I did not invest as I expected the float was never going to go well in this sought of climate.

I did read many stories over the time about the price dropping and so on.  I think it may have been on Inside Business one Sunday on the ABC also.

Luckily I had read enough to not go near it.

I feel sorry for those who have their super invested with large exposure to this.  They didn't press the buy button either.  So called professionals gave advice to qsuper to buy these.  Good advice - not.

I think I recall reading where qsuper had some $40 million, so I guess they have another $80million to pay up.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Prospector (29 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Go into business mates.
> 
> Rent a place.
> 
> ...




Dont know much about me then, do you GG.
As a business owner (for the last 15 years) and with employees   one of the first things in business is to have stock or trade that people want to buy.  Gosh, we even pay rent.  Banks?  The Banks come to us with products.  We have always traded in profit to the extent that the ATO owes us around $60K in franking credits, and we have enough cash in the Bank to last us for six months without a sale.  Double   So you see, it isnt about capitalism, it is about the way you use capitalism.  

And weren't you the one who was offering to buy these off people a few days before Christmas?  Has that happened yet?



grace said:


> A lot of qld government employees have their super with qsuper (I think that is what it is called).  They have a very large exposure to Brisconnections.  They took quite a large holding on the float, and have the payments still to make.



Ah, I was wondering if Super Funds would be caught up in this.  The only thing in their favour if they bought in the float was that they would have bought fewer shares at the float price of $1 than these people are doing now at less than a cent.  It makes their initial purchase now worthless, but at least they know the debt they bought from the PDS.


----------



## cuttlefish (29 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Jayan said:


> I have sympathy UNTIL the people who made the original mistake are then more than happy to drag anyone else into it to save their own butt.




I have sympathy regardless - people aren't perfect - but I agree that it doesn't help the cause if people are perceived to be willing to pass the buck onto the next unsuspecting punter.

This is also the reason I'm of the view that the stock should be suspended.  The only investors that would be in a position to buy any quantity of this stock at the moment are multi-millionaire retail investors with a spare million that they think worth investing in a toll road development, or an institution or fund.   Any investor of this ilk would not purchase the stock on market - they would be well aware that there are people desparate to get out and so would find a way to take acquire the parcels they need for no financial outlay (or even be partly paid to take some of them in exactly the way that GG has been alluding to.)

Thus in my opinion the only people that would make the active decision to purchase BCSCA on-market at the moment would be uninformed retail investors that are purchasing a whole lot of headache.

This is why I'm of the view the stock should be suspended - it is like a landmine sitting there waiting for retail investors to step on it.   Any investor willing to invest a million dollars in BCS is not going to be doing it on market and the minimum amount that can be purchased is $1 million worth.


----------



## sails (29 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



grace said:


> A lot of qld government employees have their super with qsuper (I think that is what it is called).  They have a very large exposure to Brisconnections.  They took quite a large holding on the float, and have the payments still to make.
> 
> A lot of people who have never heard of Brisconnections are going to be affected in a bad way when they read their super reports for the next few years.
> 
> ...




QSuper has over $23B in funds http://qsuper.qld.gov.au/members/aboutus/
- so it won't make a big dent even if bcsca should fail.  I thought I saw on the qsuper site that Macquarie Investment Management is one of their fund managers but can't find that page again now.

Even if Qsuper were initially invested, they could just as easily have sold before it got so low. Can't find any reference to it on the Qsuper site - maybe haven't found the right web page.


----------



## thermalmonster (29 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

No Takers again today for the BCSCA shares,
Just More listed for sale :-(

Can anyone recall any other Company on the ASX that has seen so few Trades? or is this a president.

Just curious


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> Dont know much about me then, do you GG.
> As a business owner (for the last 15 years) and with employees   one of the first things in business is to have stock or trade that people want to buy.  Gosh, we even pay rent.  Banks?  The Banks come to us with products.  We have always traded in profit to the extent that the ATO owes us around $60K in franking credits, and we have enough cash in the Bank to last us for six months without a sale.  Double   So you see, it isnt about capitalism, it is about the way you use capitalism.
> 
> And weren't you the one who was offering to buy these off people a few days before Christmas?  Has that happened yet?
> ...




I'm unsure as to the legality of buying stocks on a stock forum. 
probably not kosher.

These folk were ignorant and greedy.

I'd never try to run your business , I'd go broke quite soon.

These folk made a mistake.

They are not alone.

It is the final chapter in the end of a bullrun.

So lets look at our charts and not quibble.

gg


----------



## Sunder (29 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> Fences are built in public places to stop the general public falling over cliffs, etc.  I don't see the difference.




More people are killed carelessly walking into traffic than fall off cliffs? Why don't we put insurmountable fences on every walk way? Basically, because people are expected to show a due amount of care, and it is impractical to make everything completely safe. By its very nature, we NEED to have walk ways exposed to roads, for both walk ways and roads to function correctly

This was not an inherently dangerous event. Plenty of contributing shares have been issued before with no problems. This happened not due to a lack of concern for "safety", but due to unusual circumstances combined with carelessness of the buyer. By it's very nature, contributing shares need to be exposed to retail investors, otherwise there wouldn't really be a need to stagger the payments. The business needs money in steps, and they're looking for investors who are willing to pay for it in steps, and that usually means retail investors. 

I've known of someone who died because they were SMSing while crossing the road. It's unfortunate. I feel for their family and friends. By no means would I say that death is a fair penalty for being a bit absent minded... But that's life. I don't advocate that fences be put around every single walk way to stop this happening again. I don't propose that his family should sue the council to offload responsibility onto the taxpayer or anyone else. 

I feel sorry for people who bought without doing research. However, it's now their consequence, not for anyone else to take, neither by changing the laws, nor by recompensing them for their mistake.


----------



## outback (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I wonder how old mate here feels now?  

http://https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13063


----------



## thermalmonster (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Cant open that link what was it about?


----------



## Stormin_Norman (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

http//www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13063


----------



## outback (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Sorry try this one.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13063


----------



## awg (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> I must state that parkies and derros have been unfairly targeted in this debate.
> 
> Many of these folk are like you and I, with dreams and expectations for their and  fanilies future.
> 
> ...






Garpal Gumnut said:


> Its called capitalism.
> 
> And it happens daily.
> 
> ...






awg said:


> i dont think you even need a brokerage of any kind to arrange an "off-market TX".
> 
> I believe all necessary arrangements can be completed via the share registry.
> 
> ...






Hi GG an all,

I dont think I unfairly targeted the parkies and derros.

Its called Capitalism.

one offers a Fee for a Service.

In my post and previous, I think I made it clear that the moral dimension is definitely to be considered.

I would not wish to inflict my loss on someone else, without recompense.
I consider that to be the same as stealing

You may notice, I did not suggest junkies, as they would generally be younger, and may have future prospects for recovery.

I want to be perfectly clear that I meant to suggest chronic old alcoholics, with no financial prospects. (One could even refine ones search more specifically, but you will have to use your imaginations) 

This may sound callous, and may be morally or even legally improper, that is for others to judge.

But for the right individuals my transaction may well represent a GOOD DEAL for both sides.

The very essence of Capitalism


----------



## thermalmonster (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

It is certainly a possibility if you could live with yourself.

However there is bound to be individuals out there who would gladly go bust for 10K
They probably would have no assets to loose and snap your hand off for the opportunity.

If you started a web site you would probably be inundated with offers.

" Earn cash fast"  " sign here to recieve your cash payout"

Joking apart if one individual decided to become a martar for the BCSCA shareholders and took on the lability I cant see how the law could reverse it. 
After all, as stated before ,such an individual would have at least had the benifit of knowing what he/she is signing up for spelled out to them. Something us comsec users didnt have.
My Dad is about to retire, he has no assets, Lives in rented and will have to rely on a state pension.
I reckon he would consider the option of going bump for 50K.
Let maquirie try and find him in Portugal or spain or France, He would be like trying to find Lord Lucan. And if they did find him, what they going to reposses? his bedford rascal van?

Letting someone sign up for theese shares who cant pay is no different to what  comsec  / BCSA have done.
Difference being some of us have a lot more at stake to loose.
Also if all those shares fell into the hands of one individual who had absolutely no capacity to repay the debt in a million years, it would be a huge UP YOURS ! to BCSCA and their underwriters who must surley know they will be liable in the end either way cos none of us can pay the installment


----------



## thermalmonster (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I also think thats why they have been selling off as much of their liability as they can, knowing its all going to bounce back to them anyway.


----------



## awg (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> It is certainly a possibility if you could live with yourself.
> 
> However there is bound to be individuals out there who would gladly go bust for 10K
> They probably would have no assets to loose and snap your hand off for the opportunity.
> ...






I think you may have hit on quite a good idea, one that actually occured to me after my last post.

Let one person buy up the shares via off-market transfer, even better form a company first, get paid some fees, of course.

I re-state that I am unsure of the legal and logistical practicalities, but some legal and accounting opinion would be obtainable.

You may be able to PM some of the other afflicted individuals on this forums, to pool your resources in that respect.

I strongly suspect this solution has been adopted by many caught in this situation, but they are keeping quiet, which is probably wise.

I also suspect the whole project may get canned anyway, as it may be financially non-viable


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



awg said:


> I think you may have hit on quite a good idea, one that actually occured to me after my last post.
> 
> Let one person buy up the shares via off-market transfer, even better form a company first, get paid some fees, of course.
> 
> ...




Agree awg, this one lemon that could get squeezed.

I've been burnt on too many Govt/Private enterprise partnerships though to be surprised at Brisconnect.

Put the squeeze on the biggest pockets you can find.

Best of luck and a happy NY.

gg


----------



## Calliope (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



awg said:


> I think you may have hit on quite a good idea, one that actually occured to me after my last post.
> 
> Let one person buy up the shares via off-market transfer, even better form a company first, get paid some fees, of course.




I hope you are not suggesting that some one as naive as T/monster, could set up a company.

He does not even have the common sense to read a company's ASX announcements (readily accessible on ComSec), before buying their shares. Now he tries to lay the blame on Brisconnect, ComSec, and the ASX for his  own carelessness and greed.


----------



## inenigma (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> It is certainly a possibility if you could live with yourself.
> 
> However there is bound to be individuals out there who would gladly go bust for 10K
> They probably would have no assets to loose and snap your hand off for the opportunity.
> ...






thermalmonster said:


> I also think thats why they have been selling off as much of their liability as they can, knowing its all going to bounce back to them anyway.






awg said:


> I think you may have hit on quite a good idea, one that actually occured to me after my last post.
> 
> Let one person buy up the shares via off-market transfer, even better form a company first, get paid some fees, of course.
> 
> ...





Methinks I'll let someone else take up the venture listed above..  I suspect that if anyone did take up the above suggestions, then this post could be used extensively in any litigation


----------



## prawn_86 (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



inenigma said:


> Methinks I'll let someone else take up the venture listed above..  I suspect that if anyone did take up the above suggestions, then this post could be used extensively in any litigation




I think the point is not so much in avoiding liability, its more about passing it on to someone who is willing to take on that liability for a price, and would then subsequently have to declare bankruptcy.

I dont think starting a company would have any benefit, as a director can still be liable if they do not carry out their 'duties', which in this case, buying up millions of dollars worth of debt and knowing they are doing so is probably a failure of their duties.

Offer me $1mill cash and i'll think about taking them all off your hands or could find someone that would...


----------



## thermalmonster (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hey GG

If I had bigger balls (or a very good Lawyer) I would form a company, put an add in the Australian.

"Wanted BCSCA shares, Administration fee 1 cent / share"
Go Bump

Then hold my hands up!

I am supprised no one has found a loop hole to scam this


----------



## thermalmonster (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Calliope, I find your remarks quite insulting.

 I actualy have run a sucessful business for over 15 years , however it has nothing to do with stocks or shares , Just Hard Graft.
And on another note, I am not the type of guy to get himself into debt and say " sod it Take me too the cleaners" and get away with out paying a penny.
I have worked bloody hard for everything I own, and dont appreciate a jummped up Pri*k  like you telling me im nieve and making me out to be stupid.

Yes I got caught out in your country on your stock exchange, but dont you dare insult my intelligence or integrity.


----------



## Julia (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> It is certainly a possibility if you could live with yourself.



You're just worried about 'living with yourself'?  What about the potential stress and damage to the person to whom you're offloading them?




> However there is bound to be individuals out there who would gladly go bust for 10K
> They probably would have no assets to loose and snap your hand off for the opportunity.



Sure, they're just dying for the opportunity to have debt collectors after them, be taken to court etc.   If they didn't have a crappy life before, this would sure as hell have it in the bag completely.





> If you started a web site you would probably be inundated with offers.
> 
> " Earn cash fast"  " sign here to recieve your cash payout"



Quite possibly so.  And this would absolve you of any moral responsibility in the matter?





> Joking apart if one individual decided to become a martyr for the BCSCA shareholders and took on the liability I cant see how the law could reverse it.



And you say this with exactly how much knowledge of the law in this regard?



> After all, as stated before ,such an individual would have at least had the benifit of knowing what he/she is signing up for spelled out to them. Something us comsec users didnt have.



That is simply not true.  Had you done the research you would have found the information.




> My Dad is about to retire, he has no assets, Lives in rented and will have to rely on a state pension.



Puts him in the same category as thousands of others.  We are where we are as a result of the decisions we have made on the whole.




> I reckon he would consider the option of going bump for 50K.



Well, fine.  If he will do this, at least you'll be keeping it in the family and not involving some other sucker.




> Let maquirie try and find him in Portugal or spain or France, He would be like trying to find Lord Lucan. And if they did find him, what they going to reposses? his bedford rascal van?



I suspect you are underestimating the resources of debt collectors.
However, that is simply not the point.  What you are suggesting is without any moral backing.





> Letting someone sign up for theese shares who cant pay is no different to what  comsec  / BCSA have done.



Even after all this, you still don't have the share code correct!
As I've already said, as have others on this thread, that is just not true.
You failed to do the research.



> Difference being some of us have a lot more at stake to loose.



On that principle, you could suggest everyone who has lost money in ABC Learning, MFS, Allco, B. & B. etc etc. who were small investors without the capacity to lose money would similarly be entitled to shove their debt off onto someone else.  Why would that be fair?



> Also if all those shares fell into the hands of one individual who had absolutely no capacity to repay the debt in a million years, it would be a huge UP YOURS ! to BCSCA and their underwriters who must surley know they will be liable in the end either way cos none of us can pay the installment




Thermalmonster, I've thus far been sympathetic to your situation, even defended you against criticism.   I've felt Sunder and some others have been unreasonably harsh in their comments.
But any sympathy I had has now completely gone as I see you trying to justify behaving in a completely amoral way with the passing off of this debt to some poor ignorant desperate schmuk who will grab at any cash offer, their state of mind and general existence rendering them unable to comprehend all the likely repercussions.

So maybe they can't pay up.   That doesn't mean they won't be put through the wringer over the debt.

You've suggested your father might jump at the chance of this wonderful opportunity.   If he shares your dubious views and general morality then perhaps he will.


----------



## thermalmonster (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Inegima

Yes your quite right, I suspect that big brother is already watching this space

(I also reckon GG works for MQG)


----------



## thermalmonster (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

ey up Julia

Im not condoning the idea just discussing the legality of it and the fact that if the money was right there would be a few people lined up ready to take the hit.
I wouldnt inflict this on my dad not for $13k, although if i asked him he would probably do it for me, for my wife and kids sake.

Like I said before, Im a man of principal and unless I can sell theese shares on the ASX i will be defending it in court with Rocket & Bushie, My stance on this has not changed.
I am just discussing openly the loop holes that may or may not exist in possible ways to off load the Liability.
(I cant see myself wondering up and down the park for an alcoholic)
I find it extreemly intresting and the debate fascinating.

Did not MQG off load there shares by re listing all theirs on the ASX before the trading stopped?
I am sure they pay market anylists  heaps to research this type of thing. 

Incidently, the fact that I could still potentialy sell them on comsec with no disclosure of the $2.00 unpaid is just as bad as scouring the park for a drop out to by them in my mind


----------



## sails (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> More people are killed carelessly walking into traffic than fall off cliffs? Why don't we put insurmountable fences on every walk way? Basically, because people are expected to show a due amount of care, and it is impractical to make everything completely safe. By its very nature, we NEED to have walk ways exposed to roads, for both walk ways and roads to function correctly...




LOL - wasn't thinking of insurmountable fences - perhaps just a simple safety net like requiring basic education and approvals similar to that which is currently required for derivative traders.  Then, if they don't read the required info and still get into this sort of mess, it would be more likely to be seen as carelessness rather than being caught out.

Won't help those already unwittingly in the bcsca situation now, but might prevent unsuitable investors making this mistake.

It appears that few here at ASF actually trade options or warrants, but those that do would now exactly about approvals that are required before trading these different products.

Maybe it's not possible to implement this on contributing shares.  However, I was surprised that I couldn't find much educational info on unit trusts or contributing shares on the ASX site.  And yet they have a lot of educational material on options and warrants. 

Just my thoughts


----------



## thermalmonster (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Julia

If I invest in shares ( ABC or BBG Whatever ) I accept that risk. Im not complaining about the $500 i lost, its the $26k that was attached to it that I was not aware of that gets my goat !!!!!!
Why is it so hard for people to understand that their are folk " retail investors " out there dabbling on a whim, that can got caught up and still continue to get caught up!!

Look I am in construction ok, This is my analogy.
I dig a bloody great excavation, I put a small sign up saying " Danger deep excavation" everyone knows to stay well away, but some people still go and play near the excavation. They fall in... Hurt themselves,. I would expect to get sued because i did not fence the excavation.
The people selling those shares should have fenced the excavation to stop idiots like me from falling in !!
FACT !!


----------



## Calliope (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> I have worked bloody hard for everything I own, and dont appreciate a jummped up Pri*k  like you telling me im nieve and making me out to be stupid.
> 
> Yes I got caught out in your country on your stock exchange, but dont you dare insult my intelligence or integrity.




I don't know about your integrity. As for your stupidity, you told us about that. Stop blaming others, and try to do something about you potty mouth.


----------



## thermalmonster (30 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Like I said in the above post, must be a fair few" idiots" on this Forum that bought the shares, and people patronising you gives you potty mouth!


----------



## steve999 (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I have been following this thread and I find it interesting that people who purchased the shares are being told, bad luck you bought them, it's your fault etc. But if they try to think of a way to offload them to somebody else then they are being immoral. Shouldn't that be the buyer's problem? After all, buyer beware.

Also, if somebody is already up for $2million and the only solution is bankruptcy, they could buy all of the shares currently for sale instead. For only $120k you could own 30% of the shares (plus $240 million extra debt) . A bit like Fang He but even more impressive.


----------



## prawn_86 (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



steve999 said:


> I have been following this thread and I find it interesting that people who purchased the shares are being told, bad luck you bought them, it's your fault etc. But if they try to think of a way to offload them to somebody else then they are being immoral. Shouldn't that be the buyer's problem? After all, buyer beware..




I agree totally. Buyer beware, thats capitalism. Capitalism doesnt involve many 'morals' and thats for the individual to decide how far they are willing to go, within the scope of the law. And i would think if someone agreed to take on the shares at a price, then thats within the law, even if they cant pay the debt.




steve999 said:


> Also, if somebody is already up for $2million and the only solution is bankruptcy, they could buy all of the shares currently for sale instead. For only $120k you could own 30% of the shares (plus $240 million extra debt) . A bit like Fang He but even more impressive.




You could actually get paid to 'buy' these shares. Many of the holders on this thread have indicated they are willing to pay others to take them off thier hands, so you could probably own 30% without spending a cent (until you had to cough up the next contribution...)


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> Inegima
> 
> Yes your quite right, I suspect that big brother is already watching this space
> 
> (I also reckon GG works for MQG)




LOL.

Have a look at the MQG posts over the years.

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> Julia
> 
> If I invest in shares ( ABC or BBG Whatever ) I accept that risk. Im not complaining about the $500 i lost, its the $26k that was attached to it that I was not aware of that gets my goat !!!!!!
> Why is it so hard for people to understand that their are folk " retail investors " out there dabbling on a whim, that can got caught up and still continue to get caught up!!
> ...




You are in a state of grief.

Harden up mate and get on with your life.

gg


----------



## sails (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



prawn_86 said:


> ... You could actually get paid to 'buy' these shares. Many of the holders on this thread have indicated they are willing to pay others to take them off thier hands, so you could probably own 30% without spending a cent (until you had to cough up the next contribution...)




LOL Prawn - careful - you might give ideas to seminar spruikers of the future.  Can picture it now - on their soapboxes excitedly explaining to an awestruck audience on how you could actually own 30% of a company without paying a cent...  

Of course they either wouldn't mention about the next contribution  or brush it off glibly saying to simply sell before it is due


----------



## Prospector (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

So, can I just confirm here.  There is no space in Capitalism for morals or ethics?  No wonder western society is screwed.  And why when someone shows ethics and morals in their business it gets noticed.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> So, can I just confirm here.  There is no space in Capitalism for morals or ethics?  No wonder western society is screwed.  And why when someone shows ethics and morals in their business it gets noticed.




I must disagree. 

There is no space in any system for stupidity or plain bad luck.

Both get punished under capitalism or any other system.

gg


----------



## awg (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



prawn_86 said:


> I think the point is not so much in avoiding liability, its more about passing it on to someone who is willing to take on that liability for a price, and would then subsequently have to declare bankruptcy.
> 
> I dont think starting a company would have any benefit, as a director can still be liable if they do not carry out their 'duties', which in this case, buying up millions of dollars worth of debt and knowing they are doing so is probably a failure of their duties.
> 
> Offer me $1mill cash and i'll think about taking them all off your hands or could find someone that would...






Garpal Gumnut said:


> I must disagree.
> 
> There is no space in any system for stupidity or plain bad luck.
> 
> ...






I think that there is space for stupidity and bad luck in our system.

example, people regularly break their necks diving into very shallow water, then sue the council successfully for millions (of our money).

With regards to the BrisC, my personal feeling is that it IS something the regulators should and probably will look at.

How can it be that a million $ debt is acquired in such a fashion.

it simply is not good for any party.

I dont think morality or ethics should be abandoned in ANY system, some sort of balance needs to be sought, although ultimately legality will prevail. 

You simply cant outlaw naivety, stupidity, carelessness etc.

I personally would pursue legal and accounting advice, in conjunction with the other affected people.

I would make sure that I did not communicate any highly relevant information via email, in writing, or especially public forum. I would talk in person over the phone, a phone number of a lawyer has been provided by an earlier poster

I believe the info I have contributed, may allow a way forward, one would need to ensure all relevant company law was followed, and be conversant with ASIC regs and Share registry policy.

I am not a holder of BrisC and have no axe to grind here.

I stress that I do not advise any person to embark on a course of action that would breach any law of the land.

I do feel sorry for those caught up, and believe if their is a LEGAL way out, for them, then why should they not exercise it?

the morals and ethics have to be determined by each individual.

Regretably, their will be a lot of people going bankrupt in the near future for a variety of reasons, many of them will have been skating on thin ice for a long time, maybe they want to go out with a bangartyman:


----------



## Prospector (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



prawn_86 said:


> I agree totally. Buyer beware, thats capitalism. Capitalism doesnt involve many 'morals' and thats for the individual to decide how far they are willing to go, within the scope of the law.




If the basis of Capitalism is buyer beware, then why have Consumer protection laws?  Why have Compulsory Inspection reports on properties?  Why do some online trading companies offer warnings before final purchase?  Why have compulsory cooling off periods on some contracts?  It seems that it is not always 'buyer beware' at all.


----------



## prawn_86 (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> If the basis of Capitalism is buyer beware, then why have Consumer protection laws?  Why have Compulsory Inspection reports on properties?  Why do some online trading companies offer warnings before final purchase?  Why have compulsory cooling off periods on some contracts?  It seems that it is not always 'buyer beware' at all.




My qupte said "within the scope of the law". All that you have mentioned above are laws to protect people, but if you can do something within the scope of the law (selling your shares to a bum) and are happy with it morally, then thats just capitalism


----------



## steve999 (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I personally believe there should be consumer protection laws and that it shouldn't be possible to take on millions in debt from a $500 share purchase. Regardless of whether it is legal or not, I'm not a fan of letting people unintenionally ruin their lives. However, if I did happen to own these shares I would do whatever I could legally to get rid of the shares.

People should be allowed to make small mistakes, or make informed large mistakes.


----------



## cuttlefish (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Over the past 6 months MQG has been a major seller of the stock ... retail investors have been the major buyers by the sounds of it.  

Hardly a fair match up in my view.


And MQG is the same company that will, if my reading of the PDS is correct, be entitled to pursue the shareholders (on BCS behalf) that don't pay up for the debt owed.


As quite a few people have pointed out - an unfortunate reality of capitalism is that it tends to operate to the full extent allowed by the legal framework, with little regard for ethics.   

Hence the need for a legal framework that helps to shield the lambs from the wolves.


----------



## Rastan (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Although I do understand that the people who bought these shares could/should have done their homework, I must side with them on the fact that you shouldn't be able to sign up for $1mil debt instantly with a click of a button. There would certainly be something you could argue in court about the mechanisms (checks and balances) put in place by the provider of the transaction.

As for all the kerfuffle about getting someone to buy a heap of the shares from the people in trouble. For goodness sakes, I have known 2 people who have filed for bankruptcy - its not the end of the world - the debt collectors would have to back off. To make out like its some big horrible death sentence, or that they would have to go in hiding is false. They buy all the shares and then lo and behold they go bankrupt in 6 months time, simple as. If its so easy to sell these shares to retail investors, then that same reason can bite them on the bum when you sell them all (at the click of a button) to fred mcleg down the pub.

I don't see any moral problem whatsoever. There would be the legal problem of getting everyone involved to 'give' the money to a trusted 3rd party that isn't connected to fred mcleg and that he can get it in X years time. I dont know how long mcleg has to 'stay broke' for until his mysterious friend donates him the 50K or whatever, but my main point is that it isnt immoral, just another business transaction. Spell out all the downsides to being 'bankrupt' (Hows old Bondy doing?), spell out the upside and the risks and the legals and the 'how' and if fred mcleg with no life wants to buy a stack of shares from his friends before he claims bankruptcy then thats entirely up to him/her.


----------



## Prospector (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Rastan said:


> For goodness sakes, I have known 2 people who have filed for bankruptcy - its not the end of the world - the debt collectors would have to back off. To make out like its some big horrible death sentence, or that they would have to go in hiding is false.




Actually, that isn't true.  If you are self employed and are the Directors of your company (PTY LTD) then you have to get someone else to be the directors - and that is a very big call to lose your own company, as you say, because of the click of a button.  If you have your own SMSF, you have to be the director/trustee - being declared bankrupt has significant ramifications then - your super fund would have to be transferred to a different fund.
I dont know where you sit, but both of those situations apply to me.  We would lose our business, our income, and our Super Fund.  Not a death sentence but something I would dread.

I trade shares in our company; can anyone here really really honestly say they have never bought a small parcel of shares, $500, thinking that maybe it was a little gamble, maybe didnt read all the literature because you would think, Hey, I can afford to lose $500, but in BCSCA case, that little gamble lands you with a million dollar debt.  Honestly, I can say, there but for the grace of God go I.  Small consolation for those holding, but it has been a huge learning curve for me.


----------



## grace (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> Actually, that isn't true.  If you are self employed and are the Directors of your company (PTY LTD) then you have to get someone else to be the directors - and that is a very big call to lose your own company, as you say, because of the click of a button.  If you have your own SMSF, you have to be the director/trustee - being declared bankrupt has significant ramifications then - your super fund would have to be transferred to a different fund.
> I dont know where you sit, but both of those situations apply to me.  We would lose our business, our income, and our Super Fund.  Not a death sentence but something I would dread.
> 
> I trade shares in our company; can anyone here really really honestly say they have never bought a small parcel of shares, $500, thinking that maybe it was a little gamble, may didnt read all the literature because you would think, Hey, I can afford to lose $500, but in BCSCA case, that little gamble lands you with a million dollar debt.  Honestly, I can say, there but for the grace of God go I.  Small consolation for those holding, but it has been a huge learning curve for me.




You can trade, but you have to have "in bankruptcy" in your trading name for a period of time - at least 3 years, if not 6.  That might just be enough to scare most away I'm afraid.

You are listed on a couple of registers - one for life - the NIPII (although the majority of banks search the other one).

You need to make sure that someone isn't going to give you money in those first years (eg via will, horse racing, lottery etc) or the Creditor will take all of this.

You do have restrictions on how much you can earn during the 3 years following (goes up with each additional dependant child).  It is about $64k net without children off the top of my head.

I have a good summary on all of the + and -'s if someone wants a copy, please PM me.  There is one rule about not being able to transfer assets (liabilities?) within a certain timeframe of going bankrupt or the transfer is deemed null and void.

I have never been bankrupt, but if it does happen to you, you are not alone in this world.  Stats in 2009 will be very high in this field!


----------



## Julia (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> Over the past 6 months MQG has been a major seller of the stock ... retail investors have been the major buyers by the sounds of it.
> 
> Hardly a fair match up in my view.



No, indeed, but - hey - as this thread is expounding, "that's capitalism".

I think you can apply the same principle to an existing holder of the shares passing them off to a person who is homeless/ignorant/uninformed/broke.
Someone in this situation isn't a person whose life is under control, and therefore in a position to make rational decisions.

So easy to find an alcoholic or drug addict who will jump at the chance of a handful of cash.  You're not going to actually do anything illegal, so it's all just fine.

It'll pay back that nasty big Maquarie organisation just for being the  smartasses that they are?
Do you imagine the highly paid employees of MQG will suffer financially?
Of course not.  Just the shareholders will take the hit.  But that's OK.
All MQG shareholders can afford it.

As Sunder pointed out originally, someone will pay and it won't be the employees of Brisconnections, MQG or any of the online brokers.

As I've said before, I would have thought there would be something of a case against Comsec for not clearly stating on the Buy screen that there was a further $2 to pay, in contrast to at least E-trade and NAB who ensured the info was available on that final screen. 

And if there is no place for ethics or morality in our capitalist society, then God help us all.


----------



## GreatPig (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

It might be interesting to look back at the thread(s) on David Tweed to see how those now espousing "that's capitalism" commented about his operation.

Although they may have been too long ago for many of today's regulars.

GP


----------



## chops_a_must (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



prawn_86 said:


> My qupte said "within the scope of the law". All that you have mentioned above are laws to protect people, but if you can do something within the scope of the law (selling your shares to a bum) *and are happy with it morally, then thats just capitalism*




No. That is complete crap.

Adam Smith was first and foremost a moral philosopher.

It never ceases to amaze me the complete ignorance, arrogance and stupidity of the people, and the types of people that live, work and study in the finance and economics realm.


----------



## Cartman (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

just thinking outside the square for a momento here for those unlucky enuff to have got caught with these  --- 

instead of trying to find a bum on the street to sell to etc etc ---- if all u guys banded together and one punter agreed to buy/take on ALL your shares with the knowledge he/she would be bankrupted --- (pick the punter who has the *least* to lose)

the rest of you guys who were all then off the hook could agree to '*compensate'* the 'bankruptee' so his life was not actually ruined at all -- (if all you guys did the right thing by him he would probably end up better off!!)

win-win situation and im guessing totally legal?? ----   bit of lateral thinking there for yas


----------



## Macquack (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Can anyone please tell me what has caused this company's share price to go down to next to zero or less?
*The intial installment ($1.00) was fully subscribed.
The whole thing is underwritten by 
-Credit Suisse (Australia) Limited 
-Deutsche Bank AG, Sydney Branch 
-J.P. Morgan Australia Limited 
-Macquarie Capital Advisers Limited
The project is going ahead as planned*.

I must be missing something?


----------



## sails (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Here is a link to a PDF I stumbled across on another forum.  I don't remember it being posted in this thread - apologies if it has 

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20081215/pdf/31f5r0s6cmqpk3.pdf 

There is a fact sheet starting on page two stating how they plan to deal with any unpaid second instalments.


----------



## Cartman (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Macquack said:


> Can anyone please tell me what has caused this company's share price to go down to next to zero or less?
> *The intial installment ($1.00) was fully subscribed.
> The whole thing is underwritten by
> -Credit Suisse (Australia) Limited
> ...




MacBank dumped on everybody --- loss of confidence --- punters unwittingly got caught taking a punt --- zero confidence --

MacB will prob end up owning a whole lotta shares at a heavy discount to their original cost at the expense of a lot of retail investors --- ive said it b4  'crooks in suits'

it would prob be worth a punt to buy a cupla thousand shares but isnt the minimum buy on c/sec $500 ?? that equates to how much liability   --- bludy mess all round.


----------



## sails (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Cartman said:


> ...it would prob be worth a punt to buy a cupla thousand shares but isnt the minimum buy on c/sec $500 ?? that equates to how much liability   --- bludy mess all round.




Only $1m, Cartman

Your cuppla thousand would only cost you $2 to buy a $4,000 debt.  Oh, plus a bit of brokerage


----------



## Cartman (31 December 2008)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> Only $1m, Cartman
> 
> Your cuppla thousand would only cost you $2 to buy a $4,000 debt.  Oh, plus a bit of brokerage




yep its a bludy disgrace and it WILL set a 'cupla'  precendents im sure--

im interested in what the unfortunate punters caught in this mess think of my cunning plan a cupla posts back 

sails u gotta spell cupla correctly !! lol

ps if each punter is happy to give the bankruptee 2 or 3 grand  -- id even consider the scenario myself if theres enuff  'players' !! --- ps give me a few days to hide my assets though  !!


----------



## prawn_86 (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



chops_a_must said:


> No. That is complete crap.
> 
> Adam Smith was first and foremost a moral philosopher.
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me the complete ignorance, arrogance and stupidity of the people, and the types of people that live, work and study in the finance and economics realm.




So what set of high moral standards do you abide by that makes you so much better than everyone else Chops?


----------



## chops_a_must (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



prawn_86 said:


> So what set of high moral standards do you abide by that makes you so much better than everyone else Chops?




High moral standards indeed.  lol.

No. What gets my goat (and no you can't have our goat, we got rid of it ages back), is the complete misrepresentation of what something is.

Capitalism, free market trade, whatever you want to call it, at its fundamental level was never meant to be a free for all.

It came out of the utilitarian school, through Adam Smith, and was a structure for which utility could be maximised in both economic and social terms. Although fundamentally flawed, he was partly right. Geez... can't believe this watermelon just admitted that.  As in comparison to Feudalism, it was a no brainer from the then moralist's position.

The observation that he made about people generally only ever acting in self interest was not meant to be taken as a signal that that is what one should do, nor what he was advocating in his proposed system.

However, this apparent received, assumed "wisdom", which I have no idea where it came from, is really a hijacking and used as justification in the industries mentioned above.

Smith, I think, would be appalled that his writings have been abused in such a way. After all, his philosophy was inherently linked to various forms of Protestantism, in which it was partly developed through and thought that it could be a vehicle to expand the good and the 'moral'. Not so in our world view now, but probably noble at the time. 


So we have somewhere in our history, a monumental turn, where capitalism no longer serves its people. It doesn't even pretend to. Which is completely the opposite to the reasons it was proposed as a system in the first place. Just because a system is open to exploitation, does not mean there aren't  other matters at hand previously.


Which brings me to the bit that gets my goat. This, "capitalism is open to exploitation, therefore I will exploit it, and therefore I absolve myself of any responsibility in the process" attitude is the fundamental problem of the finance and econs etc etc industry today. It's kind of like the "uncovered meat" argument. Mushy brained pin stripe suit wearing civilians who are completely unable to control their urges.

The "that's just capitalism" line is evidence of this. It's complete bull****, and it's why the finance industry has absolutely zero credibility.

Labelling as and delegating personal responsibility to this anonymous "capitalism" does not make it any less the action of personal responsibility.

"Why did my FP at Storm not listen, and probably actually lie to me?" It's just capitalism.

"Why have the boards of BNB, OZL, CBA carried out borderline criminal and at best seriously reprehensible behaviours?" It's just capitalism.

It's not capitalism. It's bollocks.

When the finance and business et al industry as a whole gets over this fascination with white washing their actions in the name of capitalism, and replaces it with personal and collective responsibility, it will get some credibility. Unfortunately you seem to be a symptom of the structure and the environment that has led to these same problems.  But I hope you will see the light, because you are bright.

When confronted with all these models, and structures of how things operate, it's far too easy to be overwhelmed and see it as an irresistible force. But people create these systems. They operate through them, under them and over them. They are passive - they don't do anything. It is PEOPLE that make the decisions, it is people that have the responsibility of decisions made. Whether that is collective or individual, it is irrelevant. We have to stop trying to remove ourselves from the decisions we make. The finance realm lives in this half world, where people make decisions yet are completely absolved of responsibility in the name of some anonymous, all powerful being. Everyone is a king in the finance world.


As Socrates' famous byline was, "The unexamined life is not worth living."

Perhaps we should create one for Adam Smith, "The unexamined movement of capital and trade is not worth anything."



By the way, this has no bearing on my opinion of giving a bum these shares. I just wanted to get across that it wasn't merely "capitalism". I hope I made that clear. :


----------



## rocket12 (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hi all hope your Cristmas period was fun...

32 posters in this thread believe that this situation is unjust, and 8 posters believe that the buyers are in the wrong, with about a dozen or so not expressing any real veiw as to rights and wrongs.

Its puzzling to me that there are 8 people here that believe that in a market place where millions of average punters are allowed to buy and sell, that you and I can be presented with a pruduct with 1000 times the purchase price sting.  And for that sting to be mentioned nowhere on the main research pages.  That this is OK.

All of the 8 posters say that a five letter code should give it away???.  I feel phsically ill every time I read this.  I asked 43 people over the Chrissy period who dabble in the stock market whether they know what the difference is between a 5 letter code where CA are the last two letters and a 3 letter code.  Not one of them knew that this meant it was a contributing share.  8 of them thought that they were options or something other than a normal share and would have investigated further.  35 of them thought that they were just letters identifying the stock and would buy them if that was a stock they were interested in.

This is a market place where these 35 people can simply logon to commsec or westpac or netwealth and buy these shares.

One of the 8 posters above states he is sick of people not taking responsibities for their own actions.  We who bought these shares are responsible and perfectly happy to pay for these shares, and perfectly happy to lose this money.  Have a look at the screencaps again (I had to remove the ones on page 17 as my name was on one of them) where does it state I am up for 4 million dollars.  I think this would be the time to tell me I am up for 4 million dollars, not hidden in one of a hundred odd anouncements on the announcements page.

One of the 8 posters state $1.00 paid is mentioned on the chart page (its actually $1.00 pd) as though that is enough.  Most people seeing $1.00 pd would think that this was the stocks price at floating and wouldn't think for one second that it meant there was another two dollars owing.

One of the 8 says that the fact that I mentioned there are only 3 contributing shares in the industrial sector should have made me realize something was up.  I'm still trying to understand what logic he/she is using there.  I would have thought if these things were more common then we would come accross them more often and know to look out for them. I have never seen one before didn't know they existed, and I am not on my pat malone by a long shot.

Caveat emptor....  Material non-dislosure

Ps, if it wasn't for the 8 posters who think we BCSCA buyers are silly then this would be a pretty dull thread.....So keep it coming...


----------



## Plan_Trader (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Make that 33. Totally obscene how this has happened. 

If it was me, I would on sell to a third party with no assets in a heartbeat.


----------



## Julia (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Rocket, you don't seem to have a 'classification' for those of us who feel very sympathetic to your situation, but who do not feel OK about the responsibility for the debt being passed off onto e.g. some homeless person.

I've previously said that I'd have thought there was a case against Comsec for not making the further two payments clear on the final Buy screen.

From the screenshots we've put up from Etrade and NAB, they appear to make the info available but I don't know if this was the case when holders bought the shares.  I suppose they could have added it after all the mess came to light.

From page 2 of the PDS


----------



## sails (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hi Rocket - hope your Christmas / New Year has been OK.  I would imagine this situation would have been somewhat of a dampner.

33:8  gives 76% so far agreeing that this is an incredibly easy trap for newbies to fall into.  

I don't feel that offloading them to a homeless type person is morally right either - except that the homeless person:
(a) wouldn't be buying the shares - would likely be a gift with an extra cash bonus and 
(b) they should be informed before the deal was done with the the option to decline.
This appears to be a fairer deal than the newbie investors who fell into this.  

Certainly not condoning it - just comparing the apparent fairness (or lack of) of the two deals.



sails said:


> ....  However, I was surprised that I couldn't find much educational info on unit trusts or contributing shares on the ASX site.  And yet they have a lot of educational material on options and warrants.




Sunder hasn't replied to my last post yet - can anyone else find educational material on these unit trusts or contributing shares on the ASX site?


----------



## Prospector (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

This is the only information provided on NAB (unless you try a trade in which case the 'unpaid' warning comes up.

Rocket, is your debt around $4million?


----------



## cuttlefish (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

The other area of potential confusion for newbies is that the instalments on contributing shares aren't always mandatory - so not all CA share suffixes imply a mandatory additional payment.  For no liability companies (NL) the instalment payments on contributing shares are optional and the only penalty is that the shares are forfeited if the instalment isn't paid.   So even if people were aware there were instalments remaining to be paid they may not have been aware they were mandatory.

Have any of the people stuck in this situation investigated from a legal and accounting perspective whether there is any feasability to the idea of buying up a majority of shares, voting out the current board, and then changing the rules around the instalment payments, or instigating a wind up of the company?


----------



## rocket12 (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> Rocket, you don't seem to have a 'classification' for those of us who feel very sympathetic to your situation, but who do not feel OK about the responsibility for the debt being passed off onto e.g. some homeless person.
> 
> I've previously said that I'd have thought there was a case against Comsec for not making the further two payments clear on the final Buy screen.
> 
> ...




Hi Julia, none of the far fetched options are being entertained by any of us.  As I've stated before I have my shares up for sale in the market as do most of the others caught out, but hope that the only people who buy them off me are MaqB.  I would be horrified if someone else in the same boat as me bought them.  Those of us that bought via Commsec, Westpac etc wont be taking this lying down.  We all hope that the the powers that be come up with a solution, but we will be doing everything we can legally incase it goes all the way.

Obviously none of us that bought read the PDS.  I did go to the Brisconnections website and looked at their investor page to find out more as to what they were up to but didn't go investigating through the PDS.  It isn't compulsory to go searching for the PDS of any share.  I've bought hundreds of shares witout reading through a single PDS, and made some nice money along the way.  Some of you will find that unbelievable.  I have even bought shares since BCSCA without searching through their PDS.  However now that I know about contributing shares I only stick to 3 letter codes...

On a side note some of the 8 posters think that we were gready buying a stock hoping to make a quick buck.  Hehe that really takes the cake, I'm going to stock up on some shares tomorrow that I hope to make a quick loss on.


----------



## rocket12 (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> Hi Rocket - hope your Christmas / New Year has been OK.  I would imagine this situation would have been somewhat of a dampner.
> 
> 33:8  gives 76% so far agreeing that this is an incredibly easy trap for newbies to fall into.
> 
> ...




one of of the 13 links on the left hand side of the main page
www.asx.com.au click on the "market supervision and rules" link

Then in the drop down menu click one of the 11 links "rules guidance notes and waivers"

Then click on one of the 19 links in the middle of the page "guidance notes"

Then click on one of the 27 links "market codes and trading proceedures"

Then scroll down 5 pages and you find the information that apparently only the dumbest of retail investors doesn't know....

Cant believe I missed it....


----------



## sails (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> one of of the 13 links on the left hand side of the main page
> www.asx.com.au click on the "market supervision and rules" link
> 
> Then in the drop down menu click one of the 11 links "rules guidance notes and waivers"
> ...




Wow, no wonder I couldn't find it quickly! I can't believe that such relevant information is buried so deeply 

And yet so easy to find educational info on options and warrants on their site.


----------



## sails (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Rocket - I found a document on "Continuous Disclosure" buried deeply where the code info is also buried.  http://www.asx.com.au/ListingRules/guidance/gn08_continuous_disclosure.pdf 
 It's 25 pages long and I don't have time to go through it carefully, so not sure of it's usefulness.  It says that ASIC's "Better Disclosure to Investors" guidance principles are included in the document and talks of the "spirit" of continuous disclosure - whatever that means


----------



## Calliope (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> 32 posters in this thread believe that this situation is unjust, and 8 posters believe that the buyers are in the wrong, with about a dozen or so not expressing any real veiw as to rights and wrongs.
> 
> Its puzzling to me that there are 8 people here that believe that in a market place where millions of average punters are allowed to buy and sell, that you and I can be presented with a pruduct with 1000 times the purchase price sting.  And for that sting to be mentioned nowhere on the main research pages.  That this is OK.




It's not a matter of being unjust or right or wrong and it certainly is not a sting. You say you couldn't find anything about the Instalment Warrants on Comsec Research pages. I know it's cold comfort to you now, but you obviously didn't look. All you had to do was click announcements  and all would have been revealed. Especially the market sensitive ann on 30 Oct titled Distribution Update.

Anyone buying shares without reading their ASX anns is a very trusting soul indeed.


----------



## thermalmonster (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I bought my shares well before such an announcement.

The future Liability should have been disclosed clearly at point of sale.

Indeed I dont think they should have been allowed for sale on via online sale because of the nature of the contract and liability.

For this kind of Transaction a solicitor needed to be invoked.

I couldnt by a house on line worth 290k without a solicitor & some form of contract, let alone 4 million worth of company liability

I take it you dont have consumer credit protection and consumer regulatory rules in Australia? (and thats by no way meant as an insult or anything)


----------



## thermalmonster (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/C/ConsumCredR95.pdf

Yes you do,
 Havent read it all but it mainly covers Loans ect.
Strange one this because We havent signed up for a Loan, but if MQG pay our Liability is that then a loan?

Completely baffled by this because usualy if anyone has a debt they have usualy borrowed money to purchase something.
Cant figure by what law you owe the money

If you have only partly bought a share, surely then their must be a credit agreement to purchase the remainder?


----------



## Calliope (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> I bought my shares well before such an announcement




It's clearly  explained in their ANX Announcement on the day they listed, 31 July 2008.

Anyone trying to make a case  of non-disclosure against;

The bloke who sold the shares to him, 
Comsec who brokered the deal,
Brisconnections, who floated the stapled security package,
or the ASX who made it all possible

would be doomed to failure.


----------



## rocket12 (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> It's not a matter of being unjust or right or wrong and it certainly is not a sting. You say you couldn't find anything about the Instalment Warrants on Comsec Research pages. I know it's cold comfort to you now, but you obviously didn't look. All you had to do was click announcements  and all would have been revealed. Especially the market sensitive ann on 30 Oct titled Distribution Update.
> 
> Anyone buying shares without reading their ASX anns is a very trusting soul indeed.




All was not revealed after clicking the announcements link.  There are well over 50 announcements that you have to go through one by one. So tell me honesty when you buy a share you go through every single announcement of every share you buy.  So you really think that hidden amongst 50 announcements is the best way to inform people??  Why could E-trade and NAB online broking both in bold lettering state that this share is $1.00 paid $2.00 unpaid??  

I agree with you that it isn't a sting, I meant a sting in the tail.  A sting implies that this was done deliberately, and I don't believe anyone involved in selling these shares missled in this way on purpose.


----------



## thermalmonster (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Absolutely couldnt agree with you more Rocket !!

I am sure MQG would rather have people that could pay their second installment rather than defaults whom they will have to chase and probably end up with next to nothing.
Surely the powers that be in BCSCA must be thinking Sh*t how the hell did we let this happen


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I can hear the pain you guys who were stung but I knew this stock was a dog from the day it listed.

It opened at .65c from memory and closed in the .40c's.

For months afterwards the popular press flagged the obligation that holders or buyers had to come up with the next 2 instalments of $1.

Some folk saw this stock selling at a cent or less and bought.

That is tough on them but not as tough as those who bought at .65 C and didn't get out.

One cannot legislate for people in a market.

Go to your local veggie market of a Sunday, and it will give you more insight into the ASX than any amount of legislation.

gg


----------



## cutz (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> That is tough on them but not as tough as those who bought at .65 C and didn't get out.
> gg




Yeah but the guys that bought at 0.65c probably didn’t buy enough units to sink themselves.


----------



## thermalmonster (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Was just digging around on a couple of UK FTSE sites, different laws and regs I Know however an interesting read,

Follows:

Normally, a partly paid share would not be regarded as being of the same class as a similar share which was acquired fully paid. You may, however, treat partly paid shares as being of the same class as fully paid shares provided the balance of the subscription price is payable within six months of the issue of the shares. This practice applies both to rights issues and a purchase of shares in the market. If a public company does issue partly paid shares the terms of issue will normally specify that the full price be paid by fixed instalments within a relatively short period of time. In practice the Stock Exchange would be unlikely to give a listing to partly paid shares.

I like the last sentence !


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cutz said:


> Yeah but the guys that bought at 0.65c probably didn’t buy enough units to sink themselves.




And that is the nexus of the argument mate.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Buy 2 rotten apples and its a disaster.

Buy 200 container loads when you've never imported and exported and you are stuffed mate.

gg


----------



## rocket12 (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> And that is the nexus of the argument mate.
> 
> Couldn't have put it better myself.
> 
> ...




No you wouldn't be stuffed, you would just lose the 200 container loads.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> No you wouldn't be stuffed, you would just lose the 200 container loads.




Have you ever worked with importers and exporters, makes underbelly look like a walk in the park.

gg


----------



## thermalmonster (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hi Rocket

What is the reason the shares cannot be Forfeited like all the other partly paid ASX securities?
I have googled a few PDF reports where all unpaid stapled securities have just been forfeited.

If this is not the case with BCSCA then surely a different listing was required, or  NO LISTING AT ALL


----------



## rocket12 (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> Hi Rocket
> 
> What is the reason the shares cannot be Forfeited like all the other partly paid ASX securities?
> I have googled a few PDF reports where all unpaid stapled securities have just been forfeited.
> ...




Thats what will/should happen in the future after this has all been dealt with.  Don't know why they are different though, I did the same google searches after I realized what I had bought so it was all new to me.


----------



## prawn_86 (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



chops_a_must said:


> No. What gets my goat (and no you can't have our goat, we got rid of it ages back), is the complete misrepresentation of what something is.
> 
> Capitalism, free market trade, whatever you want to call it, at its fundamental level was never meant to be a free for all.
> 
> ...




I can totally see your point chops, and it is often a point i have pondered myself. Somewhere along the lines, morals went out the windows. I think it is something to do with mans inherent greed, and now we have something to blame our greed on (capitalism) then we can also blame our declining business morals on it.

While i agree with wat you say, im at a total loss as to how it can be fixed. I think everyone has their own moral compass and they decide how far they are willing to go personally. I have often wondered that of myself, providing what i was doing was legal, how far would i go even if it was not 'right'?

What are your ideas as to how to get morals back into business? (Perhaps it should be another thread so as not to derail this one further?)


----------



## Calliope (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

There are no laws, rules or regulations that can stop anyone, who thinks he sees the chance of making a fast buck, or getting a bargain, from jumping in the deep end without looking.

The police are amazed that some people have been caught by Nigerian scammers more than once.

For used car salesmen and real estate agents these people are icing on the cake. Their mantra is "a fool and his money are soon parted."

I know. I've been there. And learned costly lessons. And I doubt that there is anybody who hasn't been in the same boat. You have to put it down to experience and move on.


----------



## lesm (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Thats what will/should happen in the future after this has all been dealt with.  Don't know why they are different though, I did the same google searches after I realized what I had bought so it was all new to me.




BCS is a Pty Ltd Company.

From the ASX publication "Getting Started in Shares"

*Contributing Shares*
"Shares that have been partly paid for. At a
future date the shareholder will be required
to pay the balance outstanding, unless the
company is a no liability company in which case
shares can be forfeited instead."


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> There are no laws, rules or regulations that can stop anyone, who thinks he sees the chance of making a fast buck, or getting a bargain, from jumping in the deep end without looking.
> 
> The police are amazed that some people have been caught by Nigerian scammers more than once.
> 
> ...




couldn't agree more mate.

the best these guys can do is put it down to experience and move on.

gg


----------



## Calliope (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> All was not revealed after clicking the announcements link.  There are well over 50 announcements that you have to go through one by one. So tell me honesty when you buy a share you go through every single announcement of every share you buy.  So you really think that hidden amongst 50 announcements is the best way to inform people??




Read only the market sensitive anns (!) There are only a few of them.  In most cases at the end of the ann there is a statement "About Brisconnections" which tells you what you say you didn't know. Do I think it is the best way to inform people? I can't think of a better way. I have  done hundreds of trades and I haven't made one without studying the anns. 

If you think it is too big a chore to do some research you should stay away from the market.


----------



## Prospector (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> the best these guys can do is put it down to experience and move on.




I am sure these people would move on if they could; if it was just a matter of losing their initial outlay they would be ecstatic; only problem is, they now have a $1million dollar debt - kinda hard to move on from that.  

Bushie hasnt been around for a while; hope all is ok


----------



## thermalmonster (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Too true Prospector,

I think we would all move on if it was just the initial outlay we had lost.

Hard to Move on with a $4M debt over you and the threat of bankruptcy, losing your home $ Business


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> Too true Prospector,
> 
> I think we would all move on if it was just the initial outlay we had lost.
> 
> Hard to Move on with a $4M debt over you and the threat of bankruptcy, losing your home $ Business




If I were in this unfortunate situation I would follow the advice an old mate of mine who appears in the AFR giving financial advice at this very moment. 

1. Sell everything sellable for cash, boat, car, etc.

2. Clear out all my bank accounts and give cash to someone I could trust at arms length.

3. Do not speak to an accountant, they leave a trail, look at poor old Rene Rivkin, as fine an Australian patriot as one would find let down by a trail.

4. Transfer title of house now into relatives name and sell soon.

5.  Change your name by deed poll on the same day that you buy a Land Cruiser and Caravan in your old name.

6.  Head off around this great land of ours, and spend , spend, spend. 

It will boost the economy and keep you safe from Macquarie.

gg


----------



## Calliope (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Yeah GG, that's movin' on. Much more satisfying than posting three times a day complaining about getting a bum deal and looking for sympathy.


----------



## grace (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> If I were in this unfortunate situation I would follow the advice an old mate of mine who appears in the AFR giving financial advice at this very moment.
> 
> 1. Sell everything sellable for cash, boat, car, etc.
> 
> ...




If creditors do file for Bankruptcy, the current rules allow ITSA to go back as far as five years to see where any transfer of assets were made.  This is the theory.  What happens in practice?

Under the Bankruptcy rules, protected property is as follows
-  ordinary clothing
-  necessary furniture & effects
-  tools of trade (up to $3250)
- Super policies up to $400 000
- Life insurance
-  Property of non-bankrupt spouse!!!!!!!!!
- motor vehicle $6000 (net of debt)
- property/money held in trust
- wedding rings etc


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



grace said:


> If creditors do file for Bankruptcy, the current rules allow ITSA to go back as far as five years to see where any transfer of assets were made.  This is the theory.  What happens in practice?
> 
> Under the Bankruptcy rules, protected property is as follows
> -  ordinary clothing
> ...





Ask Rene   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

gg


----------



## cuttlefish (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



grace said:


> If creditors do file for Bankruptcy, the current rules allow ITSA to go back as far as five years to see where any transfer of assets were made.  This is the theory.  What happens in practice?
> 
> Under the Bankruptcy rules, protected property is as follows
> ...
> ...





Thats an interesting one - so would it be possible for people to transfer at least up to $400k of their assets into a self managed super fund and protect them that way?


----------



## Julia (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> 33:8  gives 76% so far agreeing that this is an incredibly easy trap for newbies to fall into.



Absolutely.
We regularly on this forum get first posts from new investors/traders asking where should they start.  Often the replies recommend reading of various quite sophisticated books on technical trading.
Imo much heartache could be prevented if new people simply read thoroughly through all of the Investor Education section on the ASX website.  It's free, it's clear and they will answer any questions you might have.  


> I don't feel that offloading them to a homeless type person is morally right either - except that the homeless person:
> (a) wouldn't be buying the shares - would likely be a gift with an extra cash bonus and
> (b) they should be informed before the deal was done with the the option to decline.
> This appears to be a fairer deal than the newbie investors who fell into this.



Sails, whilst I understand why you would say this, I just can't agree that any deal done with a homeless person is a deal done between equals and therefore fair.   I've spent over 12 years working with these people.  They are not homeless because they they are in control of their lives.  They are usually not emotionally stable.   If you offer such a deal to an addict, waving $1000 in front of him, he won't even hear what you are saying when you dutifully explain the ramifications of accepting such an offer.  He will just be seeing the instant means to his next hit of heroin.   Therefore, at least on my moral compass, it's simply wrong. 





prawn_86 said:


> I agree totally. Buyer beware, thats capitalism. Capitalism doesnt involve many 'morals' and thats for the individual to decide how far they are willing to go, within the scope of the law. And i would think if someone agreed to take on the shares at a price, then thats within the law, even if they cant pay the debt.



Prawn, after reading Chops' further post explaining the misuse of the expression "capitalism", you appear to have perhaps changed your tune somewhat from the above?   Or perhaps I'm just being idealistic.





rocket12 said:


> Hi Julia, none of the far fetched options are being entertained by any of us.  As I've stated before I have my shares up for sale in the market as do most of the others caught out, but hope that the only people who buy them off me are MaqB.  I would be horrified if someone else in the same boat as me bought them.  Those of us that bought via Commsec, Westpac etc wont be taking this lying down.  We all hope that the the powers that be come up with a solution, but we will be doing everything we can legally incase it goes all the way.
> 
> I have even bought shares since BCSCA without searching through their PDS



I just can't believe this.



> On a side note some of the 8 posters think that we were gready buying a stock hoping to make a quick buck.  Hehe that really takes the cake, I'm going to stock up on some shares tomorrow that I hope to make a quick loss on.



Maybe not a quick buck, but presumably you bought them in the expectation that you would make money?   

Rocket, I'm not quite sure how to say this, but I do admire the way you have coped with this.   Mostly you seem to have just got on with finding out what avenues may be available to you, gathering up others similarly affected etc., and you haven't - especially considering the stress this must be causing - been emotional and unreasonable.




Calliope said:


> It's clearly  explained in their ANX Announcement on the day they listed, 31 July 2008.
> 
> Anyone trying to make a case  of non-disclosure against;
> 
> ...



Calliope, do you not feel Comsec has a case to answer for not clearly stating the further $2 to pay on the final Buy screen before committing to the order?



thermalmonster said:


> Hi Rocket
> 
> What is the reason the shares cannot be Forfeited like all the other partly paid ASX securities?
> I have googled a few PDF reports where all unpaid stapled securities have just been forfeited.
> ...



Thermalmonster, presumably the company when deciding the terms of the IPO can determine this.   As long as they clearly state the terms in the PDS I doubt they can be accused of doing anything wrong.
I'm open to correction on this and would be interested to get examples of the above mentioned forfeited stapled securities.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

As in all investing there are 2 issues

Fear

Greed


Greed led these folk into investing in Brisconnect.

Fear now leads them to find a way out.

I find people who cannot counter greed, cannot overcome fear.

So no amount of advice will help them.

gg


----------



## chops_a_must (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



prawn_86 said:


> I can totally see your point chops, and it is often a point i have pondered myself. Somewhere along the lines, morals went out the windows. I think it is something to do with mans inherent greed, and now we have something to blame our greed on (capitalism) then we can also blame our declining business morals on it.
> 
> While i agree with wat you say, im at a total loss as to how it can be fixed. I think everyone has their own moral compass and they decide how far they are willing to go personally. I have often wondered that of myself, providing what i was doing was legal, how far would i go even if it was not 'right'?
> 
> What are your ideas as to how to get morals back into business? (Perhaps it should be another thread so as not to derail this one further?)




A thread on the value of good corporate governance would be a start I think. There has been some very interesting studies on it. Especially in regard to long term returns.

Your first paragraph is spot on.

As to what we do about it... eventually has to be self correcting to some extent. But there are some overt benefits for management to act in a more transparent and correct manner, which eventually if smart enough, they would be stupid not to take on.


----------



## sails (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> ...Sails, whilst I understand why you would say this, I just can't agree that any deal done with a homeless person is a deal done between equals and therefore fair.   I've spent over 12 years working with these people.  They are not homeless because they they are in control of their lives.  They are usually not emotionally stable.   If you offer such a deal to an addict, waving $1000 in front of him, he won't even hear what you are saying when you dutifully explain the ramifications of accepting such an offer.  He will just be seeing the instant means to his next hit of heroin.   Therefore, at least on my moral compass, it's simply wrong.




You are absolutely correct, Julia and I should not have used a homeless person in the comparison.  I totally agree with all you have written above on the lives of homeless people and as I said in my original post I was not condoning such a situation.  Life is a big enough struggle for them without adding any extra burdens.

I also agree that most homeless people would probably jump at the opportunity of some instant cash (which would most probably be spent quickly but not necessarily wisely) without fully considering future implications which may well become all too much for them.

My apologies and thanks for pointing it out


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> If I were in this unfortunate situation I would follow the advice an old mate of mine who appears in the AFR giving financial advice at this very moment.
> 
> 1. Sell everything sellable for cash, boat, car, etc.
> 
> ...




Youv'e made some good points there, I am doing a few of them already including heading off on a lovely Europe trip in Feb with my beautiful wife...


----------



## Judd (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I still cannot get my head around how in the hell the unfortunate punters who bought these these "weapons of financial destruction"


actually found them;
would actually buy something with a price of $0.001.

It took me ages searching the ASX web-site to locate these little devils - and I still haven't a clue what BCSCB is - so I can only conclude that whoever went searching for them was really diligent in trying to find one heck of a cheapo.

And then to buy such a share at that price??  Why would you unless you anticipated making a quick few bucks hoping that the price increased?

As for the unpaid, looking at the market depth, there is, on my brokers site at least, the wording "Brisconnection Trust Stapled Security Paid To $1.00, $2.00 Unpaid", ie Warning, Will Robertson.

And then looking at the chart....what a beautiful triple somersault with a half tuck from August to November.  A 99.76% fall in four months.  If that is not an indication of danger, I don't know what is.

And if people are using a broker where it is clear that no financial or other advice is provided, well that is what you get for cheap brokerage rates.

Having almost been there, while I feel sad that people could face financial ruin, all the pointers are that through their own actions and the glint of profit in their eyes, they achieved it all by themselves.  Sad but no sympathy.


----------



## Prospector (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> Yeah GG, that's movin' on. Much more satisfying than posting three times a day complaining about getting a bum deal and looking for sympathy.




Well, they will get sympathy from me!  OK, they made a mistake. But show me where, in life, spending $500 could cost you everything.  And maybe it is time for you to move on if you cant show a shred of compassion for these people; at least GG is coming up with suggestions rather than keep posting just to bagging them all the time! 



Judd said:


> I still cannot get my head around how in the hell the unfortunate punters who bought these these "weapons of financial destruction"
> 
> actually found them;
> would actually buy something with a price of $0.001. ..




At least one of these people heard of BCSCA through their employment, which is a contractor to BrisConn.  An entirely reasonable find - it is infrastructure and that is supposed to be safe!
And what is a good price to pay for a share?  I bought Paladdin at 11cents and that went all the way to $10!  That was a nice one for me.



Judd said:


> As for the unpaid, looking at the market depth, there is, on my brokers site at least, the wording "Brisconnection Trust Stapled Security Paid To $1.00, $2.00 Unpaid", ie Warning, Will Robertson..




Well, NAB and ETrade both had this just prior to entering the pin code; apparently Commsec didnt!


----------



## grace (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> Thats an interesting one - so would it be possible for people to transfer at least up to $400k of their assets into a self managed super fund and protect them that way?




Yes, it was rolling around in my head too last night......although not through a SMSF as you can't be a bankrupt trustee.  You could go to a 'normal' super fund.

The rule about transferring assets prior to bankruptcy might come into play....I'll look into it further.


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Judd said:


> I still cannot get my head around how in the hell the unfortunate punters who bought these these "weapons of financial destruction"
> 
> 
> actually found them;
> ...




I bought 17 other shares under .005 of a cent that same week, it's not hard to go through the paper and look for anything under a certain price.  Bottom fishing after a huge market correction is nothing new, not your cup of tea but heaps of people do it.  Perfectly happy to lose all this money as it's only a small percentage compared to what I put into blue chip stocks.  

Your comment asking why would we buy this stock, unless we were trying to make a quick few bucks, ummmmm well yes thats what we were trying to do, thats why people go bottom fishing. I've done this very succesfully before, done it again now, and will do it again in the future (no 5 letter share codes though)

Your broker site has done it well and informed you that there is still $2.00 unpaid clearly on the buy page, but as you can see from my screencaps on the previous page of this thread this isn't the case on all online broker sites.


----------



## mazzatelli1000 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> I know. I've been there. And learned costly lessons. And I doubt that there is anybody who hasn't been in the same boat. You have to put it down to experience and move on.




There may not be alot for these people to experience after they have lost everything!!!

Although I sympathize with folk that have got caught up in this, I believe stating that you did not even look at the PDS, won't help your case in court.

Better to keep such things quiet than to post it publicly on a forum.


----------



## noirua (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

There are very many people in a similar position including the largest shareholder who needs to pay $94 million. No chance of him finding the money.

If Brisconnections go to court on every case it would take a long time and they'd get very little of the money needed.

Many could defend on the basis that all information required to be given to them was not. They would have needed to have signed documents to make this effective, and Brokers and others should have contacted Banks to make sure they had the means to pay - similar to mining companies who require a letter of assurance from a Bank, to make sure the cargo will be paid for.


----------



## Calliope (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Your comment asking why would we buy this stock, unless we were trying to make a quick few bucks, ummmmm well yes thats what we were trying to do, thats why people go bottom fishing. I've done this very succesfully before, done it again now, and will do it again in the future (no 5 letter share codes though)




OK. so you're a gambler, and you say you have been very successful. You win some, you lose some. Now you want to blame others because you got out of your depth and lost. And *you have learnt nothing from it.* Incredible!!

That being said I think you will get away with it. The underwriters will keep you dangling on the hook as long as it suits them, and then they will throw you back. You can't get blood out of a stone. After all, you and your fellow gamblers have achieved victim status. Victims in this country are treated with sympathy no matter what idiocy led them to it. The responses on this thread are testimony to that.

As for the "5 letter share codes", I quite like the hybrid securities, but then I am an investor looking for income, not a gambler.


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> OK. so you're a gambler, and you say you have been very successful. You win some, you lose some. Now you want to blame others because you got out of your depth and lost. And *you have learnt nothing from it.* Incredible!!
> 
> That being said I think you will get away with it. The underwriters will keep you dangling on the hook as long as it suits them, and then they will throw you back. You can't get blood out of a stone. After all, you and your fellow gamblers have achieved victim status. Victims in this country are treated with sympathy no matter what idiocy led them to it. The responses on this thread are testimony to that.
> 
> As for the "5 letter share codes", I quite like the hybrid securities, but then I am an investor looking for income, not a gambler.




I've learnt not to go near 5 letter codes.


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



mazzatelli1000 said:


> There may not be alot for these people to experience after they have lost everything!!!
> 
> Although I sympathize with folk that have got caught up in this, I believe stating that you did not even look at the PDS, won't help your case in court.
> 
> Better to keep such things quiet than to post it publicly on a forum.




That would be one of the first things covered in court, obviously hundreds or thousands have bought this stock without searching for the PDS.  They have used an online broker, where in none of the reasearch pages is it mentioned that this is a contributing share.

Material non-disclosure

"one party to a contract neglects to disclose a fact that the other party would regard as a crucial factor in her evaluation of the proposed bargain"


----------



## Cartman (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> but then I am an investor looking for income, not a gambler.





lol --  we are all gamblers dont kid yrself  

an 'investor' is just a gambler who got wise enuff quick enuff not to blow up his account like these unfortunate folk  

for eg --- a punter who bought CBA last xmas and didnt practice MM would be pretty sad this xmas ----- Investor or Gambler?? 

yr entitled to yr opinion -- no probs with that -- but rubbing do-do in peoples faces when they could go to the wall sounds a bit like 'holy joe syndrome' to me

ps re the above post ----- does everyone buying BHP or CBA read their PDS??


----------



## Julia (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Material non-disclosure
> 
> "one party to a contract neglects to disclose a fact that the other party would regard as a crucial factor in her evaluation of the proposed bargain"




This would seem to cover Comsec's failure to state the remaining amount to pay on their Buy page.


----------



## Sunder (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> This would seem to cover Comsec's failure to state the remaining amount to pay on their Buy page.




Except that Comsec is not the counterparty to the transaction - they are the broker of a transaction. For example, eBay is not usually held accountable to the transactions that take place on their website.

Besides, that clause only applies if the information is not considered already public. For example, if the house you are selling is directly under a planned flight path, you are not required to disclose anything, because even though it's not *common* knowledge, it's *public* knowledge.


----------



## mazzatelli1000 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> That would be one of the first things covered in court, obviously hundreds or thousands have bought this stock without searching for the PDS.  They have used an online broker, where in none of the reasearch pages is it mentioned that this is a contributing share.
> 
> Material non-disclosure
> 
> "one party to a contract neglects to disclose a fact that the other party would regard as a crucial factor in her evaluation of the proposed bargain"




I was under the impression that the onus is on BrisConnections to make sure they disclose everything to you as they are the counterparty- which I can only assume they have done in the PDS. So material non disclosure cannot be applied to Bris Connections??

I guess you are arguing on the basis that Commsec has not delivered enough information - which is a separate case.


----------



## grace (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

From Business Spectator today



> But unlike its investors, the creators of the BrisConnections IPO cannot go unrewarded. A stock that plummets from an issue price of one dollar to one tenth of a cent, and can carry an $86 million liability from the purchase of $48,000 of shares – as one Melbourne-based investor is learning to his cost – deserves some recognition. As for hitting a low, the ASX trading system will not let you go any lower than one tenth of a cent.




This is from a story of the best and worst of 2008!


----------



## Prospector (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



grace said:


> From Business Spectator today
> 
> 
> 
> This is from a story of the best and worst of 2008!




Maybe, just maybe, the worse it gets, the better the outcome for the holders.


----------



## lesm (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



noirua said:


> If Brisconnections go to court on every case it would take a long time and they'd get very little of the money needed.




Not strictly correct.

Brisconnections will get its money (from the underwriters), if it ensures that it complies with its legal obligations under the contract/agreement with the underwriters.

Unless BCS seeks and is granted relief from the relevant clause(s), by the underwriters, it is bound to conduct debt recovery activities. To fail to do so would leave it open to litigation by its shareholders and potentially other parties for failing to meet its legal obligations.

There are, of course, questions surrounding the commercial viability of conducting debt recovery activities against defaulters who are unable to pay the required instalment(s).

Whether people like it or not, Brisconnections itself is in a catch-22 situation.


----------



## thermalmonster (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Brisconnections  have brought this situation on themselves, for not putting a safety net around the ability to by theese units.
Investors should have been vetted to ensure they had the capacity to pay the liability.


----------



## Calliope (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Cartman said:


> yr entitled to yr opinion -- no probs with that -- but rubbing do-do in peoples faces when they could go to the wall sounds a bit like 'holy joe syndrome' to me




As I said, people tend to sympathise with victims, even those who are victims of their own greed and gullibility. This guy won't go to the wall. He will escape. In the meantime he is enjoying his 15 minutes of fame...at least on this thread.


----------



## mazzatelli1000 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



mazzatelli1000 said:


> I was under the impression that the onus is on BrisConnections to make sure they disclose everything to you as they are the counterparty- which I can only assume they have done in the PDS. So material non disclosure cannot be applied to Bris Connections??
> 
> I guess you are arguing on the basis that Commsec has not delivered enough information - which is a separate case.




I don't think material non disclosure can apply to Commsec, only to BrisConnections. 

I'll propose an analogy
Commsec is like a supermarket/intermediary
BrisConnections is a manufacturer
Brisconnections shareholders are the end consumers.

The onus is on the manufacturer to have warnings and cautions on the product to notify the end consumer. The supermarket is not responsible for such disclosure and I think the same could be said for Commsec. I understand that NAB and E*Trade have extra descriptions, but the key here is whether Commsec is legally required to do so. If not, it is just a case of poor service compared to the other online brokers. 

If there is a legal requirement - then there may be a case.

Just my thoughts.
Its a tough situation, I cant think of any other avenues atm. 

Has any of the BrisConnections shareholders tried contacting BrisConnections to see if they can negotiate something?


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> As I said, people tend to sympathise with victims, even those who are victims of their own greed and gullibility. This guy won't go to the wall. He will escape. In the meantime he is enjoying his 15 minutes of fame...at least on this thread.





Yay I'm a famous poster in a thread, and it is very enjoyable.  thanks GG/Calliope 

You seem confident they wont hammer us, why is that?


----------



## lesm (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> That would be one of the first things covered in court, obviously hundreds or thousands have bought this stock without searching for the PDS.  They have used an online broker, where in none of the reasearch pages is it mentioned that this is a contributing share.
> 
> Material non-disclosure
> 
> "one party to a contract neglects to disclose a fact that the other party would regard as a crucial factor in her evaluation of the proposed bargain"




Excuse me.

As a Comsec user, similar to yourself, and having taking the trouble of looking at what information was available for BCSCA on the site, before making my first post. 

It took less than 5 minutes to find the required information.

One minute you are saying that you did very little research and the next you are claiming the relevant information is/was not available on Comsec or possibly other online brokers????? 

Look at the titles on the announcements page from Comsec that you posted in "post#36" and see if you can pick the obvious one. It is below the Distributions Update that you circled in your post.

Opposing senior counsel is going to have field day, if this ever goes to court. 

BTW, they won't be wearing 'kid gloves' if they get you and others on a witness stand under cross-examination.


----------



## cuttlefish (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



mazzatelli1000 said:


> I don't think material non disclosure can apply to Commsec, only to BrisConnections.
> 
> I'll propose an analogy
> Commsec is like a supermarket/intermediary
> ...





In my view the counterparty is the seller of the stock on the secondary market (the facilitator of that secondary market being the ASX).  

On the ASX the seller of the stock is theoretically anonymous (it probably can be technically traced but from a legal standpoint its an arms length, anonymous transaction).  Its unlikely anybody would be able to pursue the counterparty directly and it would set a very scary precedent if achieved.

I'm still of the viewpoint that the facilitator of the market should have a  responsibility to ensure that the market has adequate protection for investors from taking on undue risk, but thats  my opinion only and I don't know what legislation there is to regulate the ASX's 'regulation of itself'.


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



lesm said:


> Excuse me.
> 
> As a Comsec user, similar to yourself, and having taking the trouble of looking at what information was available for BCSCA on the site, before making my first post.
> 
> ...




You took 5 minutes to investigate something that you were actually looking for.  You do understand that we weren't looking for this, as we didn't know that you had to go investigating through every sublink on the announcements page looking for this sting in the tail that we didn't even know existed.

When I bought the share I looked through every research page checking out the fundamentals and it all looked fine to me.  The chart was ordinary, but so was the chart of plenty of others that I have bought that have recovered.  

Ps I have said right from the start that I looked through every single research page before buying, and admitted right from the start that I didn't go through every single announcement.  As the ASA have said this should be highlited on the buy page in flashing lights not hidden deep in the announcements page.


----------



## cuttlefish (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> If I were in this unfortunate situation I would follow the advice an old mate of mine who appears in the AFR giving financial advice at this very moment.
> 
> 1. Sell everything sellable for cash, boat, car, etc.
> 
> ...





So you advocate the use of deception and possibly acting in a way that is illegal?



Calliope said:


> Yeah GG, that's movin' on. Much more satisfying than posting three times a day complaining about getting a bum deal and looking for sympathy.




And  you support it.

Gives us some idea of where your senses of ethics may lie.


Moral high ground battle succesfully lost.


----------



## mazzatelli1000 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> In my view the counterparty is the seller of the stock on the secondary market (the facilitator of that secondary market being the ASX).
> 
> On the ASX the seller of the stock is theoretically anonymous (it probably can be technically traced but from a legal standpoint its an arms length, anonymous transaction).  Its unlikely anybody would be able to pursue the counterparty directly and it would set a very scary precedent if achieved.
> 
> I'm still of the viewpoint that the facilitator of the market should have a  responsibility to ensure that the market has adequate protection for investors from taking on undue risk, but thats  my opinion only and I don't know what legislation there is to regulate the ASX's 'regulation of itself'.




Cuttlefish
If your view is taken that ASX is responsible, then any possible problems means that ASX will always have its neck on the line for litiagtion etc., probably not a realistic position that they will take.

I agree with you that there should be more protection, but for the process to work investors also need to do their bit and at least do some research. 

Some of the guys here state they didn't even have a look at the PDS, which certainly does their arguments no favours

Very very tricky situation.


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> So you advocate the use of deception and possibly acting in a way that is illegal?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I actually supported a couple of his choices as well, nothing dodgy though I just need a holiday...


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



mazzatelli1000 said:


> Cuttlefish
> If your view is taken that ASX is responsible, then any possible problems means that ASX will always have its neck on the line for litiagtion etc., probably not a realistic position that they will take.
> 
> I agree with you that there should be more protection, but for the process to work investors also need to do their bit and at least do some research.
> ...




I never said I didn't look, I stated right from the word go in this thread that I looked through every research page on Commsec including the announcements page but didnt look through all of the announcements.  It all looked fine to me so I made my choice to buy.  No I didn't search for the PDS, but as the ASA have stated this info should be in flashing lights on the buy page, not hidden in a PDS or hidden deep in a sublink in an announcements page.


----------



## Calliope (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> You took 5 minutes to investigate something that you were actually looking for.  You do understand that we weren't looking for this, as we didn't know that you had to go investigating through every sublink on the announcements page looking for this sting in the tail that we didn't even know existed.
> 
> When I bought the share I looked through every research page checking out the fundamentals and it all looked fine to me.  The chart was ordinary, but so was the chart of plenty of others that I have bought that have recovered.
> 
> Ps I have said right from the start that I looked through every single research page before buying, and admitted right from the start that I didn't go through every single announcement.  As the ASA have said this should be highlited on the buy page in flashing lights not hidden deep in the announcements page.




Lesm

There's your answer. This guy is as thick as two bricks, and as slippery as an eel. For his tiny brokerage fee he wants flashing lights.


----------



## cuttlefish (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



			
				rocket12 said:
			
		

> I actually supported a couple of his choices as well, nothing dodgy though I just need a holiday...




The steps advocated by GG of hiding your tracks by not speaking to an accountant and changing name by deed poll are highly unethical at best, probably blatantly illegal at worst (I'm not a lawyer and so don't know) and would also create a whole mass of new problems for anybody that actually tries it - including possible prosecution and jail time.    I certainly wouldn't be advocating anyone go down that path.

If its not possible to tackle it in a way that is legal then the people in the situation will just have to face the music - sure do whatever is legal to protect assets where possible - but at the end of the day it needs to be treated like being a car accident victim or some other incident beyond ones control.  

The best way in my view to deal with this is to accept that there was a mistake made, that there is no point in blaming oneself or anybody else around, that the consequences are going to be extremely unpleasant, that there will be a tough period ahead, but that beyond it, in spite of it all, life will go on and it will be possible to be happy and prosperous again one day.   

Not everybody will be sympathetic - ignore the ones that aren't and accept the support and help from those that are, and return the favour when the opportunity arises.


----------



## cuttlefish (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> and as slippery as an eel.




Seems like a rather hypocritical comment from someone that supports the idea of leaving no paper trail and changing ones name to hide assets as a way of dealing with the situation.


----------



## Prospector (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> For his tiny brokerage fee he wants flashing lights.



Why did NAB and ETrade think it necessary to advise people just prior to purchase that there was a $2 per share future liability, but Comsec didnt.  Oh yeah, and we both pay the same tiny brokerage fee btw.



Calliope said:


> This guy is as thick as two bricks




And that is just plain nasty.


----------



## mazzatelli1000 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> I never said I didn't look, I stated right from the word go in this thread that I looked through every research page on Commsec including the announcements page but didnt look through all of the announcements.  It all looked fine to me so I made my choice to buy.  No I didn't search for the PDS, but as the ASA have stated this info should be in flashing lights on the buy page, not hidden in a PDS or hidden deep in a sublink in an announcements page.




As you state the ASA states (any many on this forum agree) that the warnings should be there, but what I am trying to nail here is whether this should is a "legal and/or regulatory" requirement. If not then your in a tight situation to get out of this obligation. Your argument that they should do this and that will be invalid.

I do however hope you get out of this, as I think you will.


----------



## Judd (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

rocket12 & Prospector, thanks for clarifying how some came to be embroiled in this matter.  I hadn't considered that one would look through a newspaper to do some bottom fishing or take on board that your employer is undertaking the project.

Placing aside the rights and wrongs of individuals, there are some interesting aspects.

First, the ASX conducts a secondary market.  It does not generate floats of companies but regulates (ha,ha) them after they are listed

http://www.asx.com.au/supervision/supervisory_role/index.htm

So, from that it apparently does not have legal responsibility for actual IPO's and the PDS.  BCS published the PDS - which is apparently the responsibility of ASIC to vet to ensure that all relevant facts are included in that document but the ASX has an initial role.

http://www.asx.com.au/professionals/listing/steps/prospectus.htm

The PDS is sent out to the investors who wish to participate in the float as founding investors.

However, a PDS is not required once the company is listed on the secondary market.  Imagine the chaos if BHP or NAB had to send out a PDS every time someone bought their shares before the trade was settled.

The stockbroker is the third party which between the seller of shares and the buyer of the same.  But there are two types:  Full-service who can offer advice or non-advisory which have very much cheaper rates and are not responsible for your purchase decisions.  Generally Commsec is in the latter class.

http://www.asx.com.au/resources/brokers/index.htm

Basically, it doesn't seem that anybody who bought BCSCA through Commsec, has any recourse to Brisbaneconnections, the ASX or Commsec for making such a bad decision irrespective of the very adverse financial impact which may ensue.

However, I am sure that practicing lawyers will have a field day and gather a fist full of fees and I wish all the participants the very best in this forthcoming stouch.


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> The steps advocated by GG of hiding your tracks by not speaking to an accountant and changing name by deed poll are highly unethical at best, probably blatantly illegal at worst (I'm not a lawyer and so don't know) and would also create a whole mass of new problems for anybody that actually tries it - including possible prosecution and jail time.    I certainly wouldn't be advocating anyone go down that path.
> 
> If its not possible to tackle it in a way that is legal then the people in the situation will just have to face the music - sure do whatever is legal to protect assets where possible - but at the end of the day it needs to be treated like being a car accident victim or some other incident beyond ones control.
> 
> ...




We have been told by relevant authorities not to listen nor act on anything too good to be true, or in this and a few other suggestions that are immoral or unethical.


----------



## Calliope (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> Why did NAB and ETrade think it necessary to advise people just prior to purchase that there was a $2 per share future liability, but Comsec didnt.  Oh yeah, and we both pay the same tiny brokerage fee btw.




I've no idea, but I suppose it's because they don't have to.



> And that is just plain nasty.




Maybe. But I find it hard to sympathise with fools. The other day one of my grandsons got a speeding ticket. He was foolish. He got no sympathy from his mother or his father. Quite the opposite.


----------



## Prospector (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> Maybe. But I find it hard to sympathise with fools. The other day one of my grandsons got a speeding ticket. He was foolish. He got no sympathy from his mother or his father. Quite the opposite.




And the loss of demerit points and the hefty fine no doubt taught him a lesson :; I think the corollary here is if the penalty for speeding was the loss of licence forever.  To me, it all gets back to 'just penalty'.  We both agree that there was an error of judgement, potentially stupidity, but to think this act can result in a $4million liability for a $2000 mistake - I just can't get over that.


----------



## lesm (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> You took 5 minutes to investigate something that you were actually looking for.  You do understand that we weren't looking for this, as we didn't know that you had to go investigating through everey sublink on the announcements page looking for this sting in the tail that we didn't even know existed.
> 
> When I bought the share I looked through every research page checking out the fundamentals and it all looked fine to me.  The chart was ordinary, but so was the chart of plenty of others that I have bought that have recovered.




From a chartist or T/A perspective there was only one direction and that was short, but this would be a non-shortable stock.

Actually, I used the same approach I would for researching any share that I was interested in from a longer term or investment perspective. Just set myself the task of researching the share in that manner. But, I do know what I am looking for and where to find it, which is the difference between an experienced trader/investor and an inexperienced or naive one. Plus, I am familiar with the different share codes, so there is a different level of knowledge

This situation highlights a number of issues that were probably never envisioned by the ASX or ASIC, especially with the introduction of online brokers. It has now become too easy for people to participate on the ASX, without understanding the inherent dangers or risks that can arise.

Your sample survey has indicated the number people who are unknowledgeable of the different types of shares that are available and subsequent implications that can arise. While it is a small sample, and most likely statistically questionable, the ratio is scary.

Although, the ASX makes a range of educational and other materials available, it appears that a wide range of people are not using these services or educating themselves via any other means.

How this will end is as yet unkown, but I do sympathise for those caught up in this due to their inexperience or lack of knowledge. It is a hard way to learn a lesson though. It has the potential to be very expensive and for some soul and family destroying.

Best of luck, but make sure you really do get top notch legal advice and a legal "A" team.

Be careful what you put in print and post on a public forum, it could come back and bite you and others.


----------



## Sunder (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> And the loss of demerit points and the hefty fine no doubt taught him a lesson :; I think the corollary here is if the penalty for speeding was the loss of licence forever.  To me, it all gets back to 'just penalty'.  We both agree that there was an error of judgement, potentially stupidity, but to think this act can result in a $4million liability for a $2000 mistake - I just can't get over that.




Is electrocution a fair consequence of not watching where you move a metal ladder?

Is asphyxiation a fair consequence for misjudging the surf?

Is massive trauma a fair consequence for incorrectly judging the position and speed of a car?

Remember we're not talking about *punishment* here, but *consequence*. 

Punishment knows reason. Consequence doesn't.


----------



## Prospector (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Is electrocution a fair consequence of not watching where you move a metal ladder?
> Is asphyxiation a fair consequence for misjudging the surf?
> Is massive trauma a fair consequence for incorrectly judging the position and speed of a car?
> Remember we're not talking about *punishment* here, but *consequence*.
> Punishment knows reason. Consequence doesn't.




Fair points.


----------



## cuttlefish (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Is electrocution a fair consequence of not watching where you move a metal ladder?
> 
> Is asphyxiation a fair consequence for misjudging the surf?
> 
> ...




There are very few places where moving a metal ladder will cause electrocution and there are invariably warning signs on low overhead wires and high voltage wire has insulation shielding to protect people.

The surf has surf life savers and warning signs telling swimmers to remain between the flags.  The beaches are closed completely when there is dangerous surf.

There are numerous regulations, warnings and controls over the use of motor vehicles and the road.  Drivers of vehicles need to undergo written and practical examinations before being allowed to risk their own and others lives on the roads.  Pedestrians have protection in the form of  cars being restricted to only being driven on roads (you don't see them driving on the footpath, through your local park or through your front door)  there are lights controlling intersections, curbing and footpaths are provided on roads,  fences are placed alongside freeways to restrict pedestrian access, road safety is taught in schools etc. etc. etc.

A $500 'investment' creating a $2 million dollar liabillity with no indication that this is happening at the time of purchase is the financial equivalent of exposed 240V wires lying about in the living room in my view.


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Is electrocution a fair consequence of not watching where you move a metal ladder?
> 
> Is asphyxiation a fair consequence for misjudging the surf?
> 
> ...




We all know of these consequences, they are ver basic common life knowlege that we all know.  

Go and ask 100 people what is the worst case senario of going surfing, you will get 100 people answering death by drowning.  Ask 100 people that dabble in the stock market what is the wost case senario when investing money and a huge percentage will answer that you can lose your money.  Very few would know that you could be sued for 1000 times the money you invested.

I am amazed that you could type those examples and not think to yourself that, hold on I'm making a mistake here, these are nothing like what is happening with the Brisc situation.  And I suppose even now that it is pointed out to you, it still wont register.  Will it.


----------



## sails (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



mazzatelli1000 said:


> ...Has any of the BrisConnections shareholders tried contacting BrisConnections to see if they can negotiate something?




Mazza, I think this is a good suggestion.  Has anyone contacted them to see if the shares could be forfeited?


----------



## steve999 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



lesm said:


> Excuse me.
> 
> As a Comsec user, similar to yourself, and having taking the trouble of looking at what information was available for BCSCA on the site, before making my first post.
> 
> ...




That's all great, but if the share holders don't have the $Xmillion they owe it won't make much difference to the outcome.


----------



## Julia (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> Mazza, I think this is a good suggestion.  Has anyone contacted them to see if the shares could be forfeited?



I agree here.  Excellent suggestion, Mazza.


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> Mazza, I think this is a good suggestion.  Has anyone contacted them to see if the shares could be forfeited?




Yes many of us have tried this, and we are reminded of our obligations.  The ASA have had a few meetings with them trying to find a solution including this as an option.  Most of us would be very happy gifting them our shares.


----------



## Julia (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I've just sent this email.



> Dear Brisconnections,
> 
> Could you please advise if shareholders who bought BCSCA shares when they were unaware of the further liability to pay the additional installments have the option of forfeiting their shares?
> 
> ...


----------



## mazzatelli1000 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Yes many of us have tried this, and we are reminded of our obligations.  The ASA have had a few meetings with them trying to find a solution including this as an option.  Most of us would be very happy gifting them our shares.




How about instead of trying to completely forfeit your shares (if that option is not viable), offer $X and say that is all you can offer as you cannot meet the obligation?

E.g offer them $10k or something


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> I've just sent this email.




Dear Julia

Thankyou for your email, yes we would gladly accept a transfer of shares from anyone who bought shares in our company who were unaware that this is a contributing share.  If you do know of any holders in this position, ask them to give me a call.

Kind regards Trevor Rowe

Hmmmmmmmm, I just woke up from a lovely dream!!!  This was the response.

Dear Julia

No.

Kind regards Trevor Rowe

Ps thanks for the support and sending the email, if they get enough of these it would definately help...


----------



## lesm (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



steve999 said:


> That's all great, but if the share holders don't have the $Xmillion they owe it won't make much difference to the outcome.




NO, but if they had undertaken a minimum level of research they wouldn't owe $X million of dollars.

You are missing the point of what was being responded to.

If it is claimed that the information was not available, as part of the defence to any legal action, but it actually was, then of the course there won't be much difference to the outcome. The original post was making a statement related to the possible grounds related to 'material non-disclosure', as the shareholders are attempting achieve an outcome in their favour.

Somewhere along the line people have to take some level of responsibility for there actions.

Maybe they should argue the case on the grounds of 'diminished responsibilty' or 'temporary insanity'.


----------



## steve999 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



lesm said:


> NO, but if they had undertaken a minimum level of research they wouldn't owe $X million of dollars.
> 
> You are missing the point of what was being responded to.
> 
> ...




No I understand what was being responded to... My unclear point was that in a capitalist world, maybe the purchasers should have known they had further obligations, but maybe Macquarie et al should have known that these shares were going to be purchased by people who wouldn't do the research and couldn't afford to pay.

Either Macquarie are stupid and didn't realise how badly the float would go, or they are immoral and knew what would happen.


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



steve999 said:


> No I understand what was being responded to... My unclear point was that in a capitalist world, maybe the purchasers should have known they had further obligations, but maybe Macquarie et al should have known that these shares were going to be purchased by people who wouldn't do the research and couldn't afford to pay.
> 
> Either Macquarie are stupid and didn't realise how badly the float would go, or they are immoral and knew what would happen.




I made that comment very early on, that however stupid I am for buying these shares, the authorities that allow retail investors to so easily buy these with the most bare minimum of warning makes my mistake pale in comparison.


----------



## James Austin (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



lesm said:


> If it is claimed that the information was not available, as part of the defence to any legal action, but it actually was,




Clearly, a buyer of stock deserves to be fully informed regarding their investment costs. And the company has a duty to take all "reasonable" steps to inform prospective buyers.

what does/does not constitute "reasonable" seems to be central to the argument here.

if it is "common knowledge" that i may lose the money i invest in shares or CFDs (for example), then ignorance is no excuse, [brokers have you sign forms when you open a share/CFD trading account; this effectively states you understand the rules], and therefore it is "reasonable" that a flashing neon sign does not appear across your computer monitor prior to executing such a trade. 

but . . . if it is "not common knowledge" that there may be installments attached to your initial investment, then i would suggest the company in question is obligated to take "reasonable" steps to inform investors; where "reasonable" equates to something such as: a clear and obvious notice prior to the point of sale *and at* the point of sale.

james


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



lesm said:


> NO, but if they had undertaken a minimum level of research they wouldn't owe $X million of dollars.
> 
> You are missing the point of what was being responded to.
> 
> ...




I did more than the minimum research.  There are 12 main research pages on commsec and I looked at each one of them including the announcements page.  I went to the brisconnections investor page, where there is no mention unless you click on the PDS.

Maybe I'm not as bloody minded as some but if I were in charge of this, I would actually mention this on the investor page, not in a sublink.  Lesm what would you do if you were in charge??  What would you do if you were in charge of commsec? would you mention this is a contributing share in the most obvious places on the research pages? or keep it as it is, in a couple of sublinks in amoungst 50 other links on one of the research pages.

It took you 5 minutes to go and have to find this info, knowing exactly what you were looking for.  Sorry but that is just bloody minded and unfair.


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



James Austin said:


> Clearly, a buyer of stock deserves to be fully informed regarding their investment costs. And the company has a duty to take all "reasonable" steps to inform prospective buyers.
> 
> what does/does not constitute "reasonable" seems to be central to the argument here.
> 
> ...




Thats what this whole thread, and possible legal proceedings come down to.  What people feel is fair and reasonable.

Some people feel its reasonable to not inform in the most obvious places, that it is reasonable to place this information in the most obscure places possible.

And yes being placed in a 189 page PDS to me and any reasonable persons idea of obscure.  And yes being placed in amongst 50 announcements and not on any of the main 12 research pages is my and any reasonable persons idea of obscure.


----------



## cuttlefish (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I just had another idea for BCSCA shareholders.   

Call your local federal member and offer to donate him/her your BCSCA shares as a political donation.

If every federal polly in Australia is the proud owner of wads of BCSCA debt the situation might garner some proper political attention.   

Queenslanders could donate half their holding to their federal member and the other half to their local state govt member.


----------



## thermalmonster (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Its obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that this situation should & could have been avoided.
I will use the construction site analogy once again.
I have a an 18 storey block or a 50m deep excavation. I put up flashing neon signs that say Danger Deep excavation. Danger Risk of Falling.
Someone falls off and dies or injured. I am dam sure I will be in court facing corperate manslaughter charges. Put adequate protection measures in place and I am out of jail


----------



## sinner (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Why didn't anyone look at the debt equity ratio? This is clearly displayed on the research page on my commsec account.

220%.

In short, if you examined this value and did no further research as to who the creditor was (YOU), or you did not even examine this value at all, then you are neither an investor nor a trader!

I am sure this is a rule even the people at BHP followed, login to their commsec (lol), type RIO, click research, scroll down, debt/equity 189%! NO THANKS.


----------



## Calliope (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



lesm said:


> NO, but if they had undertaken a minimum level of research they wouldn't owe $X million of dollars.
> 
> You are missing the point of what was being responded to.
> 
> ...




These people are not interested in the voice of reason. Rocket has no conception of a person being responsible for his or her actions. Still the same old lame excuses for failure to make a simple check.

There may be some excuse for novices at the game but Rocket tells us he is an experienced player. Yet as far as he was concerned BCSCA was just another penny dreadful, and as such warranted no research whatsoever. So he obviously researched none of them. He only researched BCSCA in hindsight. 
I don't think he knows what research means.

I think he will get away with it. The innocent victim pose melts the heart of public opinion. I can't see it coming to trial. Brisconnections will get their money, but the shareholders of the underwriters will end up with the tab. They will be the real victims.


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sinner said:


> Why didn't anyone look at the debt equity ratio? This is clearly displayed on the research page on my commsec account.
> 
> 220%.
> 
> ...




Centro's cant be much better, and I made a killing on that today. (for some reason their debt/equity ratio isn't listed but it cant be too flash)


----------



## steve999 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> Brisconnections will get their money, but the shareholders of the underwriters will end up with the tab. They will be the real victims.




As I mentioned earlier, why should we feel sorry for the underwriters? Do you honestly believe they were so stupid that they didn't know what was going to happen?

Some regulation can be a good thing... Perhaps not allowing partially paid shares to be purchased over the internet without some warning?


----------



## sinner (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Maybe you should use your strategy of trading high debt companies for a "killing" and instead of seeking redemption from your debt, use the "killings" to pay your liability


----------



## sails (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

FWIW here is a couple of snapshots from my WebIress a couple of days ago.  I think WI can very a bit between brokers.

The short description in the quote box shows $1 pd $2 unpd instead of BrisConnections.  Also below is the buy window which shows this information under the code.

It might not be clear to someone new to the stockmarket, but IMO it's a step in the right direction.


----------



## thermalmonster (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

well that would have stopped me from pressing the proceed button !!


----------



## cuttlefish (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> Brisconnections will get their money, but the shareholders of the underwriters will end up with the tab. They will be the real victims.





Thats hilarious, you can't be serious - the underwriters chose to underwrite this dud - they were always going to have to foot the bill - nobody who actually knew what they were getting themselves into would have gone near it with a barge pole - and the main underwriter - Macquarie - has offloaded wads of stock to naive purchasers during the year that they very likely would have been stuck holding if the purchasers were better informed of the risks.

They chose to underwrite it - they knew the risks - and they created the convoluted 'too clever by halves' product in the first place.   

They were fully aware of the risks of underwriting and they also got a nice fat fee for putting this land mine together in the first place.

Unlike the retail investors that got caught up holding this debt, Macquarie as an investment banking organisation staffed by financial professionals is well informed of the risks and pitfalls of operating in the marketplace.


----------



## chops_a_must (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> And yes being placed in a 189 page *PDS* to me and any reasonable persons idea of obscure.  And yes being placed in amongst 50 announcements and not on any of the main 12 research pages is my and any reasonable persons idea of obscure.




Lol.


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sinner said:


> Maybe you should use your strategy of trading high debt companies for a "killing" and instead of seeking redemption from your debt, use the "killings" to pay your liability




Hehe, I shouldn't have said "killings" cause I haven't sold them yet...  Anyway as I said earlier I knew that this stock (brisc) was very high risk that's why I only bought 2k worth, just a little gamble I was happy to lose.  

I can understand how people who spend hours or days going through a stock before buying would think it's bizarre to buy a stock with a more limited time frame of research.  We are all different, I dont think someone is anal for taking more time than I do, nor would I expect them to think I am a fool for doing things quicker.  These werent long term investments, some here seem to think thats a crime.


----------



## thermalmonster (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

When you default on the first installment can they bankrupt you for the whole liability or only the 1st installment.

 I cant see how they can do you for both because you may have been able to sell your shares before the 2nd installment is due


----------



## mazzatelli1000 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



chops_a_must said:


> Lol.




I wonder what PDS stands for then?


----------



## thermalmonster (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Too true, I only bought them cos im working for the contractor whos building the project.
The Ironic thing is I may well end up working on it.
I would be intrested to know how many other employees bought them


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



mazzatelli1000 said:


> I wonder what PDS stands for then?




Look at it from the point of view of someone who had no idea that contributing shares even exist.  You buy a small parcel of shares do you think many people are going to read through a 189 page document.


----------



## Calliope (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> Thats hilarious, you can't be serious - the underwriters chose to underwrite this dud - they were always going to have to foot the bill




I said the underwriter's *shareholders*. But why let accuracy spoil your nitpicking comments.


----------



## chops_a_must (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



mazzatelli1000 said:


> I wonder what PDS stands for then?




Yes how dare they hide obligations and descriptions of a product there.



rocket12 said:


> Look at it from the point of view of someone who had no idea that contributing shares even exist.  You buy a small parcel of shares do you think many people are going to read through a 189 page document.




Yes. I expect you would. And if you aren't very aware or knowledgeable of what you are investing in, even more reason.

Currently I'm investigating debt securities to purchase. The first thing I look for is the PDS. I've done exactly the same with 4 letter codes, when I was much closer to a complete noob than now.

As long as the PDS is public, and available via commsex and the ASX etc. they have no case to answer, and you are absolutely kidding yourself thinking you are going to get anywhere.

I think you will be laughed at if you admit to not reading the PDS. Like you are here.


----------



## mazzatelli1000 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Look at it from the point of view of someone who had no idea that contributing shares even exist.  You buy a small parcel of shares do you think many people are going to read through a 189 page document.




Look, the courts will expect you to at least glance through it 

Here is ASIC's guidelines on what should be disclosed in a PDS
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/IR+04-71+ASIC+issues+guidance+on+PDS+disclosure?openDocument

Maybe there is something in there you could pin them with


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



chops_a_must said:


> Yes how dare they hide obligations and descriptions of a product there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Excuse my ignorance, but are debt securities like shares that can be bought on the stock market?


----------



## cuttlefish (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> I said the underwriter's *shareholders*. But why let accuracy spoil your nitpicking comments.




Thats my point - the underwriters shareholders would have suffered regardless.   The underwriters were always going to have to foot the bill because there were no genuine takers for the stock.   Thus the shareholders in the underwriters were always going to suffer.  They are no more the victims than they were ever going to be as a result of this.


----------



## mazzatelli1000 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but are debt securities like shares that can be bought on the stock market?




Bonds (govt, corporate)etc can be traded on the stock market
They all have PDS, that you should read before you trade them


----------



## Julia (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> Thats my point - the underwriters shareholders would have suffered regardless.   The underwriters were always going to have to foot the bill because there were no genuine takers for the stock.   Thus the shareholders in the underwriters were always going to suffer.  They are no more the victims than they were ever going to be as a result of this.




I don't think that's quite accurate.   I understand the IPO was fully subscribed.  That doesn't indicate any suffering on the part of MQG shareholders.

Someone else on this thread has asked why the SP tanked as it did.
I've seen no answer.  Heard there was initially a suggestion that the yield would be 14% and later this was adjusted lower, sending the SP on the quick journey down.  But I don't know if that's true or not.

Rocket, we know you used Comsec as the broker for this transaction.
Thermalmonster, which broker did you use?

Btw to say that the details of the share were buried deeply in the PDS is not accurate either.   The PDS has the cover page, and then on the very next page there is a very clear and full description of all the details.  

Rocket and Thermalmonster:  now that you have had this experience, have you worked through all of the Education section on the ASX website?
Do you think there could be other aspects of the market about which you are unaware?
Have you read the PDS of any further shares you have bought or intend to buy?


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



mazzatelli1000 said:


> Bonds (govt, corporate)etc can be traded on the stock market
> They all have PDS, that you should read before you trade them




Are they listed in the all industrials in the newspapers like Brisconnections is?  that can be found and traded by any retail investor?  I may be wrong but all I could find in the all industrials is shares and options.


----------



## thermalmonster (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Julia
Mine were bought from Comsec in october for 0.037.
I have no intention of investing in the Australian market ever again.

At least back home the FTSE arent allowed to list such comodities


----------



## chops_a_must (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Are they listed in the all industrials in the newspapers like Brisconnections is?  that can be found and traded by any retail investor?  I may be wrong but all I could find in the all industrials is shares and options.



As far as I can tell, yes.

Lets me proceed to the buy stage on commsex.



thermalmonster said:


> Julia
> Mine were bought from Comsec in october for 0.037.
> I have no intention of investing in the Australian market ever again.
> 
> At least back home the FTSE arent allowed to list such comodities




Don't you think it is odd that you just assume things are the same here as back "home"?

Would it strike you as arrogant at all if someone was to do the same in reverse?

We are after all, not your colony.


----------



## sails (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I think one of the problems here is that there is no required education or reading before opening an online brokerage account.  

Seems like options and warrants (possibly futures?) have booklets that one is required to read together with signing special documentation before being allowed to trade those derivatives.

Without a required level of education, we all come to the share market with whatever we may have learnt along the way.  It appears judgements are being made based on what we assume other people should have known.

The reality is that there will always be a steady stream of new traders - all with different levels of knowledge and anyone without much knowledge can simply open an online account and start trading provided they have the mimumum required funds and are of the minimum age.  

Newcomers with small trading accounts are often attracted to low priced shares and so this situation is like a gaping hole waiting for another uneducated trader to fall in.  

I still reckon that a warning prior to or at the latest at the point of purchase (as James Austin has already pointed out) would be a good start as a safety net on these uncommon types of securities with future liabilities to help prevent further accidents.


----------



## thermalmonster (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I never invested at home either, just checked it out. I was looking to see if something similar had ever happened in uk in order for them to regulate the sale of them more strictly.

There is no need to be patronising, I am fully aware I am in a different country.


----------



## steve999 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> I said the underwriter's *shareholders*. But why let accuracy spoil your nitpicking comments.




So what, those shareholders also knew what they were investing in.


----------



## thermalmonster (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Absolutely Sails,

I only had $500 to chuck in, (in retrospect I wish I had put it on a horse)
My firm are the contractors, and I can get 13,500 shares in a Toll Road. Bargain!!

I consider myself fortunate that I didnt buy more when the price dropped further. Luckily I recieved the share certificate that said $1.00 paid $2.00 unpaid before i pressed the proceed button for a second time!!


----------



## rocket12 (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> I don't think that's quite accurate.   I understand the IPO was fully subscribed.  That doesn't indicate any suffering on the part of MQG shareholders.
> 
> Someone else on this thread has asked why the SP tanked as it did.
> I've seen no answer.  Heard there was initially a suggestion that the yield would be 14% and later this was adjusted lower, sending the SP on the quick journey down.  But I don't know if that's true or not.
> ...




I spent many hours looking through the education section after this, but the section on contributing shares was remarkably hard to find. (If you can find it within two hours of looking i'd be impressed)  

I have only ever had an interest in buying shares, and now I know to steer away from shares with 5 letters.  If I only buy shares with 3 letters I know that I can only lose my initial investment.

I will make these my last comments and last post on this as I am going over the same things over and over again, and my anxiety levels are going through the roof as some are highlighting the two things I didn't do (not looking through the PDS and not going through all the announcements) and ignoring the fact that a purchase of this magnitude should be presented in the most prominant pages at the point of purchase.  Tens of millions of shares are traded every single day, do some of you really believe that for every one of those shares traded that a 189 or whatever length page PDS was read? 

How many of you in all honesty have read the full PDS of every share they have ever bought. 

I have been nothing but honest with everything I have writen in this thread right from the word go and have admitted my mistakes, and I can sleep soundly at night knowing that I have never in my life allowed any of my actions affect the life of another person adversely.

If I am taken to the cleaners by a system that has allowed myself and others lives to be adversely affected (ruined) by their actions then so be it.  Thats just the way the mop flops and thats the civilized society we live in.

Thanks everyone for the support and thanks to few who have locked horns and had a good old debate.  No hard feelings not kicking off my kimbies, just getting a bit stressed out by this all...


----------



## sails (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

What happens to people who not only have limited market knowledge, but also have limited literacy?  I think almost anyone can open an account and start trading online regardless of their academic or stock market knowledge levels.  

Surely sophisticated securities such as bcsca should be kept out of reach unless certain criteria has been met.

Just my thoughts...

PS Rocket - take it easy - hopefully there will be a sensible outcome


----------



## cuttlefish (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> I don't think that's quite accurate.   I understand the IPO was fully subscribed.  That doesn't indicate any suffering on the part of MQG shareholders.
> 
> Someone else on this thread has asked why the SP tanked as it did.
> I've seen no answer.  Heard there was initially a suggestion that the yield would be 14% and later this was adjusted lower, sending the SP on the quick journey down.  But I don't know if that's true or not.




Julia - I'm not sure of the exact details - but Macquarie ended up with a substantial shareholding of 60 million shares that I don't think they were thrilled about owning.   This is an excerpt fromt the announcement to the market made on the 1st of August 2008 (the day after the first day of trading in the stock).

_valid settlement instructions were not received from a small number of institutions until after the cut off time on the institutional settlement date of 28 July 2008. This required Macquarie Group to settle for BCSCA securities on behalf of these institutional investors_

I don't  know what this mean, but it sounds to me like the underwriters - Macquarie - now owned these and were going to have to fund the additional instalments if they didn't offload them.

Luckily for Macquarie they managed to offload all 60 million shares on market between the 11th of September 2008 and 4 th Nov 2008.

Interestingly BCS reiterated their intention to pay their first fixed distribution of 5.95 cents in an investor presentation on the 10th of September 2008 (one day before MQG's first change in substantial shareholder notice to indicate they were reducing their holding).

Also interestingly,  BCS also announced on the 30th of October 2008 that they no longer intended to pay their first 5.95c distribution and were going to defer the payment until after the first instalments were due.   This coincidentally was 3 days before Macquarie announced they had ceased to be a substantial shareholder.

Make of all of this what you will.   I know what I make of it and I have plenty of sympathy for BCSCA holders and ZERO sympathy for Macquarie.


----------



## thermalmonster (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Good on ya Rocket
Chin up
Good luck


----------



## Cartman (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> Thanks everyone for the support and thanks to few who have locked horns and had a good old debate.  No hard feelings not kicking off my kimbies, just getting a bit stressed out by this all...




well i for one have no vested interest in this 'share' but ive lost my fair share of moula making mistakes ---  to all those 'holier than thou' posters on this thread that wanna put do-do on people like you Rocket --- i say 'wake up to yourselves' cause it could have easily been u !! --- oh --- u dont think so !! --- self righteous ego  problematic wanna bees !! --

telling people how dumb they are for doing this or doing that just B cause they have been lucky enuff not to have done it themselves reeks of 'holy joe' ---- 

in the end the world doesnt run on how much money u make or how good an 'investor u are -- its about HUMANITY --- u lot who r preaching to the ones hurting ought to wake up to yrselves -- cause yr time will come when yr looking for support --- and guess what --- U reap what u sow !! -- enuff said !!!

my sympathies to all u poor buggas who are suffering --- i know the road yr on --- i got lucky --- my road was only a short one-way street ----- disregard all the clever 'legal eagles' and 'letter of the law'  posters ----- they have NO IDEA what u folk are going through ------ (ignorance is bliss --- bliss is a fleeting emotion!!)

rant finished!! ---- good luck to u guys ----- i think it will end up ok for yas but not without some stress along the way ---- just hang in.


----------



## thermalmonster (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hi Cuttlefish

I got slammed on here when I called the whole thing a "Fraud"
It was a figure of speech relating to something that IMHO sailed very close to the wind (in legal terms)

Thanks to all who have tried to offer support or a way out. I dont think rocket , myself or bushie were on here looking for the sympathy vote but trying to utilise the wealth of experience and knowledge of the users.

If nothing else it has linked a few of us together with a common denominator.
Lets hope our voices are heard and that a sensible conclusion is drawn.


----------



## chops_a_must (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> Surely sophisticated securities such as bcsca should be kept out of reach unless certain criteria has been met.



Agreed.

And that goes for any 5 letter coded securities.


----------



## cuttlefish (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Thermal I've been deliberately cautious/restrained in my comments on this topic but I have every sympathy for yourself, Rocket, Bushie and all others that have landed in this circumstance and wish you all luck. 

I certainly hope that someone in the media takes the time to figure out how to present this in a way that the financially illiterate masses can understand it so that it gets some proper traction. Either that or that there is a quiet resolution put to you by BCS and the underwriters that allows them to get some of their pound of flesh while at the same time allowing those affected to avoid courts and/or bankruptcy proceedings.

And I hope that things change in relation to the accessability to this and similarly risky products in the future.


----------



## lesm (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



James Austin said:


> Clearly, a buyer of stock deserves to be fully informed regarding their investment costs. And the company has a duty to take all "reasonable" steps to inform prospective buyers.
> 
> what does/does not constitute "reasonable" seems to be central to the argument here.



Agree



			
				James Austin said:
			
		

> but . . . if it is "not common knowledge" that there may be installments attached to your initial investment, then i would suggest the company in question is obligated to take "reasonable" steps to inform investors; where "reasonable" equates to something such as: a clear and obvious notice prior to the point of sale *and at* the point of sale.
> 
> james




Yes, but "common practise" will/may come into play here. The  disclosure by the company appears, on the surface, to be in accordance with the normal practise of the ASX and its Rules of Disclosure and its approach to disclosure, which have been in place for a considerable period of time.

Buyers and sellers of shares interact with each other without the intervention, involvement or knowledge of the underlying company, except that it knows these events occur via the ASX's ITS system. Hence, the company is not a direct counterparty to these transactions, as in other types of business transactions. Which raises the question as to broker obligations, especially the online brokers, and potentially buyer and seller obligations.

The company itself is neither a buyer or seller in this current situation.


----------



## cuttlefish (2 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Interestingly, in an ASX announcement by BCS on the 16th Sept 2008, there are various analyst valuations, and one of the analysts, the Macquarie Research analyst Ian Myles, valued them at 93 cents and rated them as a buy.

(about a month later MQG announced some more reductions in substantial shareholdings, selling on-market over 30 million shares at prices of less than 3c per share as far as I can tell - this is my interpretation only - the original announcements are the best source for those seeking further information)


----------



## Sunder (3 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> A $500 'investment' creating a $2 million dollar liabillity with no indication that this is happening at the time of purchase is the financial equivalent of exposed 240V wires lying about in the living room in my view.






rocket12 said:


> I am amazed that you could type those examples and not think to yourself that, hold on I'm making a mistake here, these are nothing like what is happening with the Brisc situation.  And I suppose even now that it is pointed out to you, it still wont register.  Will it.




I guess this boils down the difference between those who think this situation is "wrong" and this situation is "unfortunate". One of us treats the share market like a living room, the other treats it as a threatening environment. 

I'm "amazed" that you could buy a derivative product (a security derived off shares, but not a share itself.), and not bother to find out the obligations or how it's derived. The reciprocal incredulty simply highlights that we have very different view points, and clearly, one of us, thinking the world is a hostile and dangerous place, took more precautions. I'm sure I've missed out on many of the gains you have made by gambling on penny dreadfuls, but I've clearly also missed out on the risks.


----------



## Prospector (3 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> I will make these my last comments and last post on this as I am going over the same things over and over again, and my anxiety levels are going through the roof as some are highlighting the two things I didn't do (not looking through the PDS and not going through all the announcements) and ignoring the fact that a purchase of this magnitude should be presented in the most prominant pages at the point of purchase.  Tens of millions of shares are traded every single day, do some of you really believe that for every one of those shares traded that a 189 or whatever length page PDS was read?
> 
> How many of you in all honesty have read the full PDS of every share they have ever bought.




I agree you need to take time out; telling you what you should have done is doing your head in and you don't need it now.  The fact remains that Comsec did not give you a warning prior to final purchase confirmation; NAB and ETrade did.  The *only *time I have read a PDF is when I am thinking about taking up an IPO.  Once the shares are trading, then I do company research, but that would not necessarily have picked up this debt.  Dont come back again, what you and Thermalmonster need now is a support thread only; too late for the 'naughty boy' stuff.



chops_a_must said:


> Agreed.
> 
> And that goes for any 5 letter coded securities.




Hell Chops, we agree again! :



cuttlefish said:


> And I hope that things change in relation to the accessability to this and similarly risky products in the future.




Absolutely.  Small comfort to those caught up in this but I am sure everyone here (other than the real clever ones ) has learnt a huge lesson.  Best wishes to Rocket, TM and Bushie and everyone else involved.  I dont care anymore how it happened, it has happened and I feel for you guys.


----------



## Bushie (5 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> Read only the market sensitive anns (!) There are only a few of them.  In most cases at the end of the ann there is a statement "About Brisconnections" which tells you what you say you didn't know. Do I think it is the best way to inform people? I can't think of a better way. I have  done hundreds of trades and I haven't made one without studying the anns.
> 
> If you think it is too big a chore to do some research you should stay away from the market.




I spent an hour on Netwealth, Google Finance, following the announcements listed there, attempted to open the Brisconnect site, waited for 30mins & it didn't download (I run WIN 98SE), I gave up & purchased $982-00 worth of shares understanding that all I was risking was $982-00. Went away for 3 days, came back, read my emails to find out I had committed to $1.864,000-00 debt!!! I considered I had looked far enough to risk that initial amount on a toll road/tunnel that had a 45 year concession.  As we are pensioners heading into our last couple of decades on this earth, our health is not the best, all we were hoping for was a comfy nest egg (small income stream) from the shares as the years rolled by. This is NOT A GREED GRAB. We were only trying to make old age a bit easier, that's all.  And for trying to not be a total burden on the Govt. this is the result, possible bankrupcy which would lead to homelessness, & what little we own, would not go to our daughter & her family as it should, no, it will most likely end up as a mere drop in the ocean of MAQ Bank's funds. Not a very nice scenario considering I did do my homework & NO WHERE I looked did anything say $2-00 unpaid. ( I have since obviously scoured the site & found it in the security section of Netwealth- but too late to be helpful.)


----------



## Bushie (5 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Bushie hasnt been around for a while; hope all is ok[/QUOTE]

Hi, all as ok as can be, have been hiding out in the real world playing with my darling grandson, trying to forget this nightmare for a few days.


----------



## cuttlefish (5 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> I guess this boils down the difference between those who think this situation is "wrong" and this situation is "unfortunate". One of us treats the share market like a living room, the other treats it as a threatening environment.




I prefer to think of it as - one of us thinks that the financial equivalent of unshielded 240V wires lying around the living room is a problem that needs to be addressed, and the other likes to stand around watching people fry themselves and gloat about how they knew about it all along and would never be stupid enough to have stood on it.


(and in case there is still any confusion on the matter I don't own and have never owned BCSCA, my comments are as an observer of the situation only).


----------



## steve999 (5 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Does anybody have any information on the relevant laws etc that would be used to sue shareholders who didn't pay the future installments?

I'm just wondering what the shareholders would actually be sued for? I understand that the liability is transferred when the shares are sold to another party? Does anybody have any info on the legal side of this?

I've never purchased partially paid shares for this reason... I don't know enough about them.


----------



## sails (5 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> I prefer to think of it as - one of us thinks that the financial equivalent of unshielded 240V wires lying around the living room is a problem that needs to be addressed, and the other likes to stand around watching people fry themselves and gloat about how they knew about it all along and would never be stupid enough to have stood on it.
> 
> 
> (and in case there is still any confusion on the matter I don't own and have never owned BCSCA, my comments are as an observer of the situation only).




Very well explained in a nutshell, Cuttlefish!

My opinion is the situation between the BrisC situation and the likes of Made-off and Storm debacles is that the BrisC buyers believed they were risking nothing more than their modest investment.  It wasn't everything they owned.

While I do feel sorry for the state the others are in, it appears they are generally quite financially sophisticated people who had already made good money in their lifetime.  Then, for whatever reason, decided to invest everything they owned with no apparent diversification, and then leveraged extremely heavily against it.  

Just my thoughts on what I see as two very different circumstances.  

Good to hear from you Bushie - hang in there.


----------



## Calliope (5 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Bushie said:


> I spent an hour on Netwealth, Google Finance, following the announcements listed there, attempted to open the Brisconnect site, waited for 30mins & it didn't download (I run WIN 98SE), I gave up & purchased $982-00 worth of shares understanding that all I was risking was $982-00. Went away for 3 days, came back, read my emails to find out I had committed to $1.864,000-00 debt!!! I considered I had looked far enough to risk that initial amount on a toll road/tunnel that had a 45 year concession.  As we are pensioners heading into our last couple of decades on this earth, our health is not the best, all we were hoping for was a comfy nest egg (small income stream) from the shares as the years rolled by. This is NOT A GREED GRAB. We were only trying to make old age a bit easier, that's all.  And for trying to not be a total burden on the Govt. this is the result, possible bankrupcy which would lead to homelessness, & what little we own, would not go to our daughter & her family as it should, no, it will most likely end up as a mere drop in the ocean of MAQ Bank's funds. Not a very nice scenario considering I did do my homework & NO WHERE I looked did anything say $2-00 unpaid. ( I have since obviously scoured the site & found it in the security section of Netwealth- but too late to be helpful.)




I am extremely sorry for your predicament and I can understand if you found my post irritating. I was, however, specifically replying to Rocket who is an experienced trader who knew the ropes. He knew how to get the information he wanted but he didn't look.

There is a world of difference between his case and  yours.

I still feel that the underwriters will not pursue the little guys. It is unfortunate though that they will keep you dangling for a time. I wish you and your family the best of luck.


----------



## Julia (5 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> I prefer to think of it as - one of us thinks that the financial equivalent of unshielded 240V wires lying around the living room is a problem that needs to be addressed, and the other likes to stand around watching people fry themselves and gloat about how they knew about it all along and would never be stupid enough to have stood on it.



Great analogy, Cuttlefish.



sails said:


> My opinion is the situation between the BrisC situation and the likes of Made-off and Storm debacles is that the BrisC buyers believed they were risking nothing more than their modest investment.  It wasn't everything they owned.



Yes, and their investments appear to have been very modest indeed.
Also, in Bushie's case, the plan for a bit of extra income in the retirement years would seem to have made a lot of sense.



> While I do feel sorry for the state the others are in, it appears they are generally quite financially sophisticated people who had already made good money in their lifetime.  Then, for whatever reason, decided to invest everything they owned with no apparent diversification, and then leveraged extremely heavily against it.



I agree, Sails.  Someone on the Storm thread leveraging so heavily on an asset base of $4million just is really surprising to me.




Calliope said:


> I still feel that the underwriters will not pursue the little guys. It is unfortunate though that they will keep you dangling for a time. I wish you and your family the best of luck.



I'm sure we'd all echo this.


----------



## cuttlefish (5 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> Very well explained in a nutshell, Cuttlefish!
> 
> My opinion is the situation between the BrisC situation and the likes of Made-off and Storm debacles is that the BrisC buyers believed they were risking nothing more than their modest investment.  It wasn't everything they owned.
> 
> ...





Cheers sails - I also view the BrisC situation as different to situations where companies have gone broke/investors have lost all of their money.  I think most investors, even novice ones, are wise enough to know that they can lose all of their money if they put it all into one basket.    Also anyone that purchases these sorts of things is informed at the time of signing or of pressing the submit button exactly how much money they are risking.   This wasn't the case here.

When you buy a house, the full amount is clearly spelled out on the front page of the contract - the page that also gets signed - its not buried away in the back anywhere or in a separate document.

When you buy ordinary shares the full amount of the purchase price is spelled out at the time of purchase (and putting in a password and pressing submit is the electronic equivalent of signing).

When applying for any kind of loan the amount of your loan and your repayment requirements are spelt out cleary in the document that is signed.

Any normal purchase, from paying for dinner at a restaurant to buying the groceries, to buying a house, to getting a car loan, to buying ordinary shares etc. spells out the full amount owed at the time payment is handed over and/or the agreement is signed.

For the enormous levels of debt created in this situation, it seems like a regulatory issue that needs to be addressed, that the total amount of commitment being entered into wasn't spelled out at the time of purchase.


Bushie a cheers from me as well - good to see you are keeping your chin up and I hope Calliope's observations hold true in the long run.


----------



## Macquack (5 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

From the Brisdisconnections website
*What if I don’t pay the instalments?*
If you are liable for an instalment on stapled securities and do not pay the instalment, BrisConnections can take action to recover the amounts owing.
If you still fail to comply with your payment obligations, voting and distribution rights relating to those stapled securities will be suspended. BrisConnections can also sell your stapled securities and apply the sale proceeds to pay the amounts outstanding in respect of those stapled securities, which will include the unpaid instalment amount plus any applicable interest (calculated from the instalment payment date) and the costs and expenses of enforcement and sale. The balance (if any) will be paid to you.
If the sale proceeds are not sufficient to cover the amount outstanding, BrisConnections can pursue you personally for the balance. This may include the commencement of legal action against defaulting unitholders.
The payment of the instalments has been fully underwritten by Macquarie Capital Advisers and Deutsche Bank (except for the second and final instalments in relation to partly paid stapled securities issued under the Distribution Reinvestment Plan). To the extent unitholders default on payment of the instalments, *Macquarie Capital Advisers and Deutsche Bank can either acquire the stapled securities which are to be sold by BrisConnections, or subscribe for such number of those stapled securities which BrisConnections cancels. *
You should be aware, however, that the fact that instalments have been underwritten will not affect your liability to pay instalments, nor will it guarantee a residual amount to those who have defaulted on their payment obligations.

Did those goons from the house of greed (Macquarie) sell all their shares knowing full well they would get them back for nothing when the shares are forfeited.


----------



## thermalmonster (5 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I would say so


----------



## Julia (5 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

A few days ago I posted an email I'd sent to Brisconnections asking if it was possible to just forfeit the shares.  I was doubtful there would be a reply.
Today the following response was received:


> Thank you for your email of 2  January,2009.  The email has been passed onto me via our Airport Link enquiries email address.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Julia (5 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

And this is my further response to Brisconnections:



> Thank you for your detailed response to my email.
> 
> I'm happy to say that I'm not a shareholder in Brisconnections (not saying this because of any doubt about the validity of the project but purely because I'm grateful not to have such a debt).
> 
> ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> A few days ago I posted an email I'd sent to Brisconnections asking if it was possible to just forfeit the shares.  I was doubtful there would be a reply.
> Today the following response was received:




I suppose that is clear enough. 

The poor bastards who bought them may have a way out if the company lets them in other words. Otherwise they are stuffed it would appear.

gg


----------



## Stormin_Norman (5 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

can a shell company buy these shares?


----------



## cuttlefish (5 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> A few days ago I posted an email I'd sent to Brisconnections asking if it was possible to just forfeit the shares. I was doubtful there would be a reply.
> Today the following response was received:




The quote below is an excerpt from the BCS reply Julia posted:



> 1. The instalment structure of BrisConnections’ stapled securities was disclosed in the PDS document last July 2008, is described on the BrisConnections’ web site,* is expressly stated on the bottom of all ASX and media releases (in the information about BrisConnections)*, and is specifically stated on holding statements.




I have bolded part of it about BCS saying that there is information about the instalment structure at the bottom of all ASX announcements.

I can't find it in quite a few of the announcements - for example the market sensitive announcement made by BCS on 15th of August 2008  (the first market sensitive (i.e. !) announcement made by BCS after their announcement of being admitted to the official list.  If someone else can point out to me where I'm missing it that will help clear up my confusion.

The link to the BCS announcements on the ASX site is here (or go to announcements search page and search for announcements by BCS in 2008).

http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistic...ssuerCode=bcs&timeFrameSearchType=Y&year=2008

I also can't find it in the the response to the ASX price query announcement (another announcement flagged as market sensitive) made on the 8th of September 2009.

For myself when I research a company I often only read the market sensitive announcements - as far as I can tell the information about the units being partly paid is not in these two announcements but its entirely possible that I've missed it.   

Something else that I found interesting whilst browsing through the announcements is that many of the companies that lodged substantial shareholder notices, in the 'class of shares' column, put 'ordinary fully paid shares'  as the class of share.  

For example - on 11/09/2008  Morgan Stanley refers to them as Fully Paid Units in its ceasing to be a substantial shareholder notice.  

On 12/09/2008 Qld Investment Corporation refers to them as "Ordinary shares fully paid" in its announcement about a change in substantial shareholding.  

These announcements about substantial holdings are filled in and filed by the investor/institution concerned, not by BCS, but the referral to them as fully paid in these notices could easily have caused confusion for any BCS investor that was perusing the announcements.

*MQG also refers to the class of share as 'FPS' (Fully Paid Stapled) *in their initial substantial shareholder notice on 1st of August 2008 and refers to them as FPS in many of their subsequent substantial shareholder announcements  (I didn't open them all but in all of the ones I did open they were referred to as FPS).

No wonder investors were confused, when the shares were repeatedly referred to as Fully Paid in these various notices by the underwriter of the partly paid securities.  (Or maybe I'm confused and the securities that MQG did sell on market were actually Fully Paid )

Please note - my interpretation of these ASX announcements may be incorrect - so refer to the raw announcements for verification and further information.


----------



## joeyjoejoe (6 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Stormin_Norman said:


> can a shell company buy these shares?






this makes me think.

couldnt you create a PTY LTD company then sell the shares from yourself as an individual to the company OFF MARKET.......then declare the company bankrupt????????????

even as the Public officer you cant be liable for the debt????????

am i wrong in thinking this???????

"

What is a company?

In many ways a company is similar to a sole trader or partnership, except that it exists as a separate legal entity from the owners (who are called shareholders). This means that in most circumstances, personal assets of the owners cannot be touched to pay for the debts of the company. 

"
http://smallbusiness.smh.com.au/starting/finance/what-is-a-company-907098771.html

this would only cost between $1k - $2k to set up and follow through from go to woe

its worth looking into........ if i was in this situation (which im not ) i would probably approach my accountant with this idea.

although page 3 dosent give me as much hope

"sometimes a director can be held personally responsible for actions that are clearly beyond the ability of the company to pay."

but still.. it still MAY be worth looking into. just use the word "INVESTMENTS" in the company name and say it was setup for major trading with high risk (theres nothing illegal about that as its not a superfund)........

at least you would have some form of CASE against BRISC in that "im not liable because its company debt"


----------



## cuttlefish (6 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Actually looking through the MQG substantial holder announcements - they appear to have changed how they refer to the securities between the 20th of Oct and the 22nd of Oct 2008.   

In the ASX announcement on 20th of Oct 2008 MQG stated that they had reduced their holding of *'Fully Paid Stapled (FPS)*' from 60,402,741 to 53,816,335.

In the ASX announcement on 22nd of Oct 2008 MQG stated that they had reduced their holding of *'Stapled Securities (SS)*' from 53,816,335 to 48,728,382.

As I've stated - my interpretation of this information may be incorrect - refer to the original announcements for verification and further information.


----------



## Dondi (6 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I think the fact that they said..

"we are considering whether there are options available which will preserve the integrity and still honour our commitments." means they know this whole thing is a fiasco and are at least trying to come up with a compromise.

One other thing I find strange is that they keep going on about how many warnings they have posted on announcements and so forth but if this is the case then why have so many people been trapped.  Surely this wouldn't be the case if they (BrisC) and brokers were as transparent as they say they were.

Also, if cuttlefish is right and the banks/underwriters didn't even know what class of share these were how the hell is the average investor supposed to know!


----------



## cuttlefish (6 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Another ASX announcement by BCS where I don't see any explicit referral to the partly paid nature of the units is the letter to shareholders released on 26/08/2008. This letter is one welcoming people as a security holder of Brisconnections.

This letter makes a mention that a distribution of 15.27c will be paid (and refers the reader to the PDS to find out more about the distribution).  That is the distribution that was subsequently deferred. 

It also has a section on risk at the bottom that as far as I can tell doesn't mention the partly paid nature of the securities and the liability incurred on purchase.

My interpretation of these announcements may be incorrect - refer to the original announcements for verification and further details.


----------



## cuttlefish (6 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Another announcement by BCS where I can't see any mention of the partly paid nature of the security is the 'Top 20 security holders' statement released to the ASX on the 8th of August 2008.

This announcement simply refers to them as 'securities'.   It also refers readers to the Substantial Shareholder Notice lodged by Macquarie - the same notice I mentioned above where Macquarie refers to the securities as 'Fully Paid Stapled' in their notice.    I note that BCS didn't chose to correct or mention this mistake when they referred readers to the MQG notice from this Top 20 shareholder notice.


----------



## cuttlefish (6 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Interestingly the Indicative Top 20, released on 30/07/2008 DOES refer to them as partly paid stapled units.


Also the Appendix 3B (A document I typically look for to determine capital strucuture of a company before investing) released on 1/08/2008 does also correctly and explicitly state that they are ordinary partly paid,  and the time frames that the additional two $1 payments are due, and refers readers to the PDS.

So there is a fair bit of inconsistency - I doubt any of it is intentional on either BCS or MQG or any of the other institutions behalf - but in my view it is easy to see how anyone reading the announcements could have become confused.


And clearly I need to get a life after spending an evening reading these announcements about a stock I don't even own


----------



## Julia (6 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> And clearly I need to get a life after spending an evening reading these announcements about a stock I don't even own



As do I, it would seem, given that I actually had a dream about this stock last night.


----------



## lesm (6 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> I am extremely sorry for your predicament and I can understand if you found my post irritating. I was, however, specifically replying to Rocket who is an experienced trader who knew the ropes. He knew how to get the information he wanted but he didn't look.
> 
> There is a world of difference between his case and  yours.
> 
> I still feel that the underwriters will not pursue the little guys. It is unfortunate though that they will keep you dangling for a time. I wish you and your family the best of luck.




Agree with Calliope.

Hope that when the company and its underwriters look at this from a commercial viability perspective in determining how to approach debt recovery activities, permit the little guys who made a genuine mistake or error simply return their shares.

Any active traders caught up in this should have known better.

Hang in their Bushie. Try and get good advice on how to manage this situation and protect you and your family's interests. Best of luck.


----------



## thermalmonster (6 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Cuttlefish & Julia,
All of this assistance is greatly appreciated by myself & I am sure rocket & Bushie.

Are you able to download theese announcements in case they are required for future evidence.

I think if the ASA drive a media push on this now, wheels might start to turn in the right direction, The shares are still not moving at all


----------



## cuttlefish (6 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

thermalmonster - all asx announcements can be found by searching the announcements section of the ASX site.  

I've put the dates on any announcements I've mentioned above so its easy to correlate them.  There's a link below, or go to the announcements link on the left side of the www.asx.com.au page and search for BCS announcements in 2008.

http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistic...ssuerCode=bcs&timeFrameSearchType=Y&year=2008


As I've mentioned earlier - its bests not to trust my interpretations but to look at the raw announcements to verify anything I've noted in the earlier posts.


----------



## sails (6 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Thermal - I guess you probably know you can save a copy of  PDF files on to your PC - just in case you didn't there is usually a "Save" icon on the top left hand side of the PDF window.


----------



## thermalmonster (6 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Yep, sorted cheers


----------



## Cobber (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Hi Rocket,
> 
> I'm sorry to hear of your situation.  I've been following this mess for a few weeks now.  I do think there will be a way out for you using an off-market transfer.  But please get some professional advice before acting on any of these suggestions.
> 
> ...




What is the SRN and where do I find it?


----------



## Absolutely (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

OK, anyone tempted to buy a few of these at these prices ?

I mean it's a huge fiasco and embarrassment for the company. Those who can't pay their outstanding committments will surely forfeit their shares, but not a lot more then that will happen I don't think (may be a bit of company hot air in the interim to scare a few in to meeting committments if at all possible.This is more to keep an image up then anything). But after that, the company will want and need to create some sort of value for those who do pay up. They are going to get the  money from the underwriters anyway who would of conducted some sort of due diligence on the project before committing.

I'm tempted to buy a 1000. Surely the company will want to see the value of the first installment go back up at least a bit. It was a fire sale to get out. There must be some value in this project surely. I am looking at getting some work for my own company on the project and from what I can work out, it's business as usual at Brisconnect. they are going to build these roads, and at some point they are going to be worth something. 

Any thoughts....?


----------



## prawn_86 (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Absolutely said:


> Any thoughts....?




Normally $500 is the minimum parcel, so you would have a massive liability from the start


----------



## sails (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Absolutely said:


> OK, anyone tempted to buy a few of these at these prices ?
> 
> I mean it's a huge fiasco and embarrassment for the company. Those who can't pay their outstanding committments will surely forfeit their shares, but not a lot more then that will happen I don't think (may be a bit of company hot air in the interim to scare a few in to meeting committments if at all possible.This is more to keep an image up then anything). But after that, the company will want and need to create some sort of value for those who do pay up. They are going to get the  money from the underwriters anyway who would of conducted some sort of due diligence on the project before committing.
> 
> ...




LOL, that would cost only cost you $1 at this stage.  Of course $2,000 down the track.  

If you are seriously going to do this - why not contact one of the guys here in trouble and see if you can do an off market transfer.  Wouldn't be much help, but a perhaps a little is better than none.


----------



## sails (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



prawn_86 said:


> Normally $500 is the minimum parcel, so you would have a massive liability from the start




I thought that was only Commsec?  I rarely trade shares unless assigned on an option, so I may have it wrong.


----------



## prawn_86 (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> I thought that was only Commsec?  I rarely trade shares unless assigned on an option, so I may have it wrong.




Never actually tried less than $500 with my broker, brokerage chews up way too much.


----------



## Absolutely (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Well, it could be worth the punt????? But only if I can get just a 1000. Just pay the brokerage so to speak.

I'll be up for a couple of thousand down the track but by that time the company should of figured a way out of this mess, will have pissed off the defaulters and will be wanting to get the thing going again for those who are left.


----------



## Sunder (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Absolutely said:


> OK, anyone tempted to buy a few of these at these prices ?
> 
> I mean it's a huge fiasco and embarrassment for the company. Those who can't pay their outstanding committments will surely forfeit their shares, but not a lot more then that will happen I don't think (may be a bit of company hot air in the interim to scare a few in to meeting committments if at all possible.This is more to keep an image up then anything). But after that, the company will want and need to create some sort of value for those who do pay up. *They are going to get the  money from the underwriters anyway *who would of conducted some sort of due diligence on the project before committing.




So, I'm curious... What happens when a letter from Macquarie Bank gets sent like this?

Dear Mr T Rowe,

We refer to your request to pay out your claim for the unrecoverable portion of the contributing shares. We refer you to clause 19773 subsection A, which imposes upon your company, Brisconnections, the responsibility to make all legal and reasonable attempts to recover outstanding contributions. We note that you have not pursued any holders of the securities through traditional debt collection methods, and therefore cannot consider your efforts "reasonable", and we consider you in breach of your responsibilities.

We therefore regret to inform you that we are declining to pay your insurance claim.

Best Regards,
Mr N. Moore
Chairman, Macquarie Bank

Make no mistake. Brisconnections cannot in any way make it even vaguely look like they're letting anyone off the hook, otherwise their insurance contract is worth as much as the comprehensive car insurance contract of someone who admitted to drink driving while disqualified. Zip.


----------



## outback (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

So why aren't the professional type investment businesses jumping on board?


----------



## cuttlefish (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Absolutely said:


> Well, it could be worth the punt????? But only if I can get just a 1000. Just pay the brokerage so to speak.
> 
> I'll be up for a couple of thousand down the track but by that time the company should of figured a way out of this mess, will have pissed off the defaulters and will be wanting to get the thing going again for those who are left.





It doesn't make any sense to me to buy even a small parcel.  

If there were a true market for these they would be trading at a negative price (in my opinion).  Even after the next $1 instalment has been paid its entirely possible they could still continue to trade well below $1.    (The initial $1 instalment paid when it was floated didn't stop them trading down to .001c, why should the second instalment be any better).


----------



## Sunder (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> If there were a true market for these they would be trading at a negative price (in my opinion).




I agree. If there are people willing to pay you to take these shares off their hands (which from this thread, there clearly are!), then the "true market value" of this share is negative.


----------



## Julia (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> LOL, that would cost only cost you $1 at this stage.  Of course $2,000 down the track.
> 
> If you are seriously going to do this - why not contact one of the guys here in trouble and see if you can do an off market transfer.  Wouldn't be much help, but a perhaps a little is better than none.



That's about the only positive I could see in anyone acquiring any of these shares at this stage.



Sunder said:


> So, I'm curious... What happens when a letter from Macquarie Bank gets sent like this?
> 
> Dear Mr T Rowe,
> 
> ...



Yep, very hard to see that Macquarie will play anything other than a very hard ball with this, as they do with everything else.



cuttlefish said:


> It doesn't make any sense to me to buy even a small parcel.
> 
> If there were a true market for these they would be trading at a negative price (in my opinion).  Even after the next $1 instalment has been paid its entirely possible they could still continue to trade well below $1.    (The initial $1 instalment paid when it was floated didn't stop them trading down to .001c, why should the second instalment be any better).



Agree completely.


----------



## cuttlefish (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Dear Mr T Rowe,
> 
> We refer to your request to pay out your claim for the unrecoverable portion of the contributing shares. We refer you to clause 19773 subsection A, which imposes upon your company, Brisconnections, the responsibility to make all legal and reasonable attempts to recover outstanding contributions. We note that you have not pursued any holders of the securities through traditional debt collection methods, and therefore cannot consider your efforts "reasonable", and we consider you in breach of your responsibilities.
> 
> ...




Yes I agree with this as well - in this respect Brisconnect is between a rock and a hard place. In my view, somehow public or political pressure will have to be brought to bear on the situation , or alternately some sort of succesful legal defense tackling the legality of a liability that has been acquired in this manner.  (or a combination of the two).


----------



## Bushie (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Which brings us back in a circle to the horror situation of Mac Bank & Duesche Banks trying to divide up our assets in a fire sale by taking our property from us  (after our mortgage bank gets first chop) at the end of the day they can/may/will? put us out on the street???!!! I understand that big banks don't think twice when it comes to taking real estate, no matter where or of what value.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

@ absolutely...don't be tempted.

To everyone stuck with these shares.....

I don't want to seem like I am rubbing your noses in it.  I'm going to make the following comment out of a spirit of keeping you informed. Please don't flame me.

@ holders of Brisconnect...

If you default upon your instalment and cannot pay, Brisconnections will ultimately sell your shares on market and then pursue you for the difference.... Do you get how that works?

The current shares BCSCA (listed at $1.00) will probably have a code change when the due date occurs (to reflect that in effect there are TWO shares.  One where the instalment has been paid...and one in which it has not.) Don't add stress to yourselves when this code change occurs and then a few days later it pops back up under BCSCA. Unlike when you purchased the shares...be aware of what is happening before it happens. DON'T look on the market see the price is no longer $0.001 cent and hit the sell shares button in a knee jerk reaction - Make sure you know which shares are which or you could end up with trying to sell a share you don't own.

One of the options (and IMHO the most likely) that BCSCA has is to sell defaulting shares.... there is currently no market for them to be able to do this under a pre instalment market. So how will they do this?

There _will be_ a post instalment market - these are the shares that have just had a dollar paid into them...they _should_ be worth at least a dollar right? Right? I mean these things will have had $2.00 paid into them when you consider the IPO as the first instalment.  *Sorry won't play like that. * Because Brisconnect will sell the defaulting shares into this market (because it will be the only market that they _can_ sell shares into in an attempt to recover the debt). 

With so much stock to be sold hanging over the shares, guess what that will do to the share price?  _*TIMBER!!!!*_

So what does this mean for you if you spent $500 at a tenth of a cent and bought 500,000 shares?

Brisconnect sells your shares at...

$1.00 - You forfeit your shares and breath a sigh of relief
$0.90 - You forfeit your shares and they pursue you for $50,000.00
$0.80 - You forfeit your shares and they pursue you for $100,000.00
$0.70 - You forfeit your shares and they pursue you for $150,000.00
$0.10 - You forfeit your shares and they pursue you for $450,000.00

So for you holding the shares what does this tell you? 

a) if there is likely to be a significant overhang on the shares that will get worse with time.
b) which is likley to depress the shares more over time
c) you can't sell your shares into the post instalment market...only they can do so when they default you.

Do you want Brisconnect to default you and sell your shares....as soon as possible? or when they get around to you amongst the thousands of other shareholders?

Hopefully I've stimulated you into thinking about what you might be able to do to lessen your exposure.

Good Luck

Sir O


----------



## Cartman (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Bushie said:


> Which brings us back in a circle to the horror situation of Mac Bank & Duesche Banks trying to divide up our assets in a fire sale by taking our property from us  (after our mortgage bank gets first chop) at the end of the day they can/may/will? put us out on the street???!!! I understand that big banks don't think twice when it comes to taking real estate, no matter where or of what value.




hey Bushie --- my sympathies to u and all others caught up in this -----

just out of curiousity ---- did any of u guys take my suggestion seriously that u all band together and X-trade yr shares to the one with the least amount of assets (least amount to lose) ---- 

that person would become the fall guy and declare bankruptcy when the MacCrooks come knocking ---- effectively letting everyone else off the hook --

the ones off the hook can then 'discretely" compensate the fall guy after the event with a small remuneration per player  --------- 

everybody wins ---- MacCrooks lose ---- shifty??   not really --- gotta play the same game M/C are happy to play with u guys ---  most likely legal too ------  no-one sees merit in this??   --
desperate times require outside the square thinking !!


----------



## Dondi (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sir Osisofliver said:


> @ absolutely...don't be tempted.
> 
> To everyone stuck with these shares.....
> 
> ...




Thanks for the heads up Sir Osisofliver but I have a few questions:

1.  Don't BrisC risk saving the same problem if they take this route. ie, what if they sell into the market and end up selling to more mums and dads at 10c or below.  They'll just have the same problem when the 3rd and final instalment needs to be payed??

2.  Has this course of action been taken before with similar situations in the past?


----------



## Bushie (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

So that we can get back on track again I am attempting to upload a 6 page 'fact sheet' that we received from BCS dated 9th Dec outlining exactly what they intend to do to us & its gruesome path. This is so wrong - it sounds like it has been choriographed well in advance.


----------



## Dondi (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Dondi said:


> Thanks for the heads up Sir Osisofliver but I have a few questions:
> 
> 1.  Don't BrisC risk saving the same problem if they take this route. ie, what if they sell into the market and end up selling to more mums and dads at 10c or below.  They'll just have the same problem when the 3rd and final instalment needs to be payed??
> 
> 2.  Has this course of action been taken before with similar situations in the past?




Sir O, in your opinion would it make more sense for Maqb or another big institution to accept a transfer of all our shares, cleaning up the share registry, turning Brisc into a tightly held stock and ensuring they dont have this same nightmare in 2010.


----------



## steve999 (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Cartman said:


> hey Bushie --- my sympathies to u and all others caught up in this -----
> 
> just out of curiousity ---- did any of u guys take my suggestion seriously that u all band together and X-trade yr shares to the one with the least amount of assets (least amount to lose) ----
> 
> ...




If I personally held any of these shares I'd be considering this. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, for 100k you could basically own 30% of the shares. If I knew I was going to get bankrupted anyway, I'd buy all the shares for sale. Hmm, If I owned 100% of the shares I could probably get out of having to pay myself the next installment


----------



## Bushie (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



steve999 said:


> If I personally held any of these shares I'd be considering this. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, for 100k you could basically own 30% of the shares. If I knew I was going to get bankrupted anyway, I'd buy all the shares for sale. Hmm, If I owned 100% of the shares I could probably get out of having to pay myself the next installment




Sounds interesting only to date we only know of 5 of us in contact, we would need to access the registry somehow to find out who the other 100's are.  I am in the (no money) department therefore I can only try to give my shares/units away to any takers no matter how small a parcel off market. As on market I can only move $500 worth which instantly amounts to a $1million dollar debt. However I liked "Absolutely's" suggestion - anyone who wants from 100 to 1000 shares can have them. Free. I am not selling them, therefore I am breaking no law I know of - surely I can give them away?


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Dondi said:


> Thanks for the heads up Sir Osisofliver but I have a few questions:
> 
> 1.  Don't BrisC risk saving the same problem if they take this route. ie, what if they sell into the market and end up selling to more mums and dads at 10c or below.  They'll just have the same problem when the 3rd and final instalment needs to be payed??
> 
> 2.  Has this course of action been taken before with similar situations in the past?




1) BrisC don't risk anything by taking this route. They go after the shareholder for any unpaid amount (that is, YOU) and if you can't pay the difference they can then go legitimately to Macquarie bank and say... Underwrite the rest please we dd what we could.  If they do force the shares to a low price, who do you think will buy it?  Hint it'll be the same guys that sold it off when it was 60 cents, because now they can buy for ten cents a security that has $2.00 of value put into it.  When the third instalment wanders around they will wash rinse and repeat.

2) no it has never happened before that there is no market in the pre instalment shares... this is a new situation...and my take on the most likely way this will play out.


----------



## joeyjoejoe (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Absolutely said:


> OK, anyone tempted to buy a few of these at these prices ?
> 
> I mean it's a huge fiasco and embarrassment for the company. Those who can't pay their outstanding committments will surely forfeit their shares, but not a lot more then that will happen I don't think (may be a bit of company hot air in the interim to scare a few in to meeting committments if at all possible.This is more to keep an image up then anything). But after that, the company will want and need to create some sort of value for those who do pay up. They are going to get the  money from the underwriters anyway who would of conducted some sort of due diligence on the project before committing.
> 
> ...




why buy them now when the price wont move until april and you can most likely still buy them for 0.001 after april with only one installment to pay..

this is being realistic.. although for everybody on here I HOPE that the future is more positive. what your saying has merit but your timing is off..... if you think the project has merit why not buy into in 2010 when all this is behind everybody

(as per the advice from point 1)


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Dondi said:


> Sir O, in your opinion would it make more sense for Maqb or another big institution to accept a transfer of all our shares, cleaning up the share registry, turning Brisc into a tightly held stock and ensuring they dont have this same nightmare in 2010.




No - there is no incentive for them to do so...why buy now what you can pick up at a later date in a fire sale?

EG  Why buy now when there is two dollars to pay, when there is a good chance that you will be able to buy the thing at 60 cents (with $3 put into it) in 2010?


----------



## cuttlefish (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Bushie, Rocket, Thermal etc. - what steps have been taken so far in relation to this?

Has anyone engaged or spoken to a lawyer/barrister well versed in corporate/contract law?     Also I've seen Rocket mention the ASA - have they started to put together a list of people affected - are they helping to facilitate any action?    

What does ASIC say about the whole thing?  Also has anyone been in touch with their local federal member (and state member if from QLD)?   

It might also be worth trying to engage a PR company or speak to some journalists and see if any are interested in running the story.  Based on some of the things I've seen from looking through the announcements I would have thought there would be a variety of angles for a journalist to explore.   

Similarly from a legal perspective I would expect the right sort of lawyer/barrister would see some different potential avenues to explore as well.


One thing of interest in that letter you mention bushie (I found it on the asx site) is that the letter mentions a 6 month period they are required to pursue  the funds for  - maybe by bringing an action to contest the legality of the contract it might be possible to stall any creditors/debt collection process long enough for this period to expire?   (I'm not a lawyer of course, these are just ideas, none of them may have merit).

It would also be worthwhile speaking to a bankruptcy lawyer because they may be able to advise of legal means to protect assets.  Also when does the liability actually get incurred?  It is possible the liability may not actually exist until the record date has passed - in which case it may actually be legal to transfer your assets to a trusted party prior to that date, or transfer the shares prior to that date without repercussions  - again I have no idea, I'm not a lawyer - but I'd be pursuing anything and everything were I in the situation.

For example you don't want to find out after the fact that you should have sent a letter or commenced some type of legal action prior to the record date that could have protected yourself.   There may be things from a legal perspective that can be done prior to the record date or the call notice date that can't be pursued after that date.

Also if you can get some shareholders together you might be able to pool funds for a good barrister/lawyer - and you may also possibly be able to get a meeting facilitated between yourselves and BCS and/or MQG to try to work out a compromise thats acceptable etc.

You've probably thought of most of these things and a million more but just in case I thought it doesn't hurt to mention them.


----------



## lesm (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> Bushie, Rocket, Thermal etc. - what steps have been taken so far in relation to this?
> 
> Similarly from a legal perspective I would expect the right sort of lawyer/barrister would see some different potential avenues to explore as well.




Get the best legal advice you can afford individually or collectively, if you wish to pursue this route.



> One thing of interest in that letter you mention bushie (I found it on the asx site) is that the letter mentions a 6 month period they are required to pursue  the funds for  - maybe by bringing an action to contest the legality of the contract it might be possible to stall any creditors/debt collection process long enough for this period to expire?   (I'm not a lawyer of course, these are just ideas, none of them may have merit).




What you will most likely see is that the clock will stop until the contestation is resolved and will restart once the matter is finalised. You may or may not need an injunction issued as part of this contestation to prevent BCS taking any action, while the matter is being scheduled for hearing. If required, this will ensure the clock is stopped.

Again, please seek legal advice.

You are overlooking that if BCS pursue all reasonable action to recover the outstanding/owed funds that the Underwriter has/retains the right to pursue further debt collection activities, after it has funded the shortfall.



> It would also be worthwhile speaking to a bankruptcy lawyer because they may be able to advise of legal means to protect assets.  Also when does the liability actually get incurred?  It is possible the liability may not actually exist until the record date has passed - in which case it may actually be legal to transfer your assets to a trusted party prior to that date, or transfer the shares prior to that date without repercussions  - again I have no idea, I'm not a lawyer - but I'd be pursuing anything and everything were I in the situation.




The liability is effectively incurred by the holders of these shares on the record date.



> Also if you can get some shareholders together you might be able to pool funds for a good barrister/lawyer - and you may also possibly be able to get a meeting facilitated between yourselves and BCS and/or MQG to try to work out a compromise thats acceptable etc.




Think a number of the people involved have already been discussing this option (class/joint action).

A mediation based approach, as suggested in the quote above, would be more cost effective than going to court and possibly less stressful.

Good luck.


----------



## Cartman (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Bushie requested these files to be upoaded ---- had to be converted due to size restrictions --- hope they are readable 

two more to follow ---


----------



## Cartman (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

last two
--


----------



## Cartman (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

sorry page 5 got chopped   ----- again ----


----------



## Julia (7 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sir Osisofliver said:


> Hopefully I've stimulated you into thinking about what you might be able to do to lessen your exposure.
> 
> Good Luck
> 
> Sir O



Sir O, thanks for your comments.  I appreciate that you can't actually offer advice, but I suspect that the people affected here, especially Bushie, are probably too upset and stressed to easily follow the advice in your last sentence.
Can you offer them some clues as to anything they may legitimately do at this stage?



Bushie said:


> So that we can get back on track again I am attempting to upload a 6 page 'fact sheet' that we received from BCS dated 9th Dec outlining exactly what they intend to do to us & its gruesome path. This is so wrong - it sounds like it has been choriographed well in advance.



Bushie, it will indeed have been 'choreographed in advance'.  In taking the project to the market every contingency will have been considered, as you would expect. 

  I appreciate that in your situation it's immensely difficult to look at the situation objectively, but if you were able to, then I'd guess you'd find it difficult to come up with a different scenario from the point of view of Brisconnections and the underwriters.  The project is going ahead, apparently successfully, and the funding for its next stages has to come from somewhere.



cuttlefish said:


> Bushie, Rocket, Thermal etc. - what steps have been taken so far in relation to this?
> 
> Has anyone engaged or spoken to a lawyer/barrister well versed in corporate/contract law?     Also I've seen Rocket mention the ASA - have they started to put together a list of people affected - are they helping to facilitate any action?
> 
> What does ASIC say about the whole thing?  Also has anyone been in touch with their local federal member (and state member if from QLD)?



Yes, I've also been hoping to hear from some of the affected people what legal advice they have received.





> It might also be worth trying to engage a PR company or speak to some journalists and see if any are interested in running the story.  Based on some of the things I've seen from looking through the announcements I would have thought there would be a variety of angles for a journalist to explore.




I have earlier today sent a synopsis to a Courier Mail journalist with whom I've had prior contact on another matter with the suggestion that she look into doing a detailed story on this.  The 7.30 Report have already done this some weeks ago.





> Similarly from a legal perspective I would expect the right sort of lawyer/barrister would see some different potential avenues to explore as well.



I'd be interested to know if there is in fact anything available in a legal sense.
I'd have thought Macquarie et al would have been pretty sure to have had all the appropriate legal rulers run over it before it went out to the market.






> One thing of interest in that letter you mention bushie (I found it on the asx site) is that the letter mentions a 6 month period they are required to pursue  the funds for  - maybe by bringing an action to contest the legality of the contract it might be possible to stall any creditors/debt collection process long enough for this period to expire?   (I'm not a lawyer of course, these are just ideas, none of them may have merit).
> 
> It would also be worthwhile speaking to a bankruptcy lawyer because they may be able to advise of legal means to protect assets.  Also when does the liability actually get incurred?  It is possible the liability may not actually exist until the record date has passed - in which case it may actually be legal to transfer your assets to a trusted party prior to that date, or transfer the shares prior to that date without repercussions  - again I have no idea, I'm not a lawyer - but I'd be pursuing anything and everything were I in the situation.
> 
> ...



All good points, Cuttlefish.  What does your legal adviser say about all the above Rocket, Thermalmonster, Bushie and anyone else who is involved?
If you don't have answers to the points Cuttlefish has raised, I'd suggest you get on with getting them as quickly as possible.
Dealing with such as Macquarie is not for amateurs or the ill informed.


----------



## cuttlefish (8 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



lesm said:


> The liability is effectively incurred by the holders of these shares on the record date.





Although it becomes payable on that date and remains with whoever held at the record date, thinking about it more, I suspect from a legal/accounting perspective that rather than the liability being 'created' on the record date, the legal liability exists already and is attached to the security and transferred with it up to that date.  It is effectively detached from the security after the record date (and remains with the registered holder of the securities on the record date).    

btw lesm, in case you haven't seen my earlier posts - I'm not a holder of these - I've just taken an interest in the situation because it seems pretty harsh for those that did get caught up in it.    

I've also been a bit suprised at some of the things that turned up when I read through the BCS announcements.


----------



## Bushie (8 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> Bushie, Rocket, Thermal etc. - what steps have been taken so far in relation to this?
> 
> Has anyone engaged or spoken to a lawyer/barrister well versed in corporate/contract law?     Also I've seen Rocket mention the ASA - have they started to put together a list of people affected - are they helping to facilitate any action?
> 
> ...




Hi Cuttlefish, yes, we are all pursuing different avenues. Rocket 12 is busy sussing out lawyers, I have a complaint lodged with ASIC, we are all in touch with Australian Shareholders Association who is advocating on our behalf to all parties on the other side, I have made contact with my local member for Qld, & Federal Member, have had 2 visits to lawyers, & 1 to my accountant.
Regarding the media, ASA is cautious in this area at present as they are hoping to resolve this mess without going hugely & embarrassingly public. As Trevor Rowe of Brisconnect states, the integrity of the project is important & if we publicly damn them, what hope will we have of fair play?  I would much prefer that it be resolved in a quiet & calm manner rather than be a tv target for 'idiot of the month'. As you all know from this thread, until the details get ground about out in the open, many will have a poor view of those caught up in the trap.
I really appreciate the thought that went into your response, thank you for airing all of these directions, any & all suggestions are being explored for legality or plausability. Desparation breeds inventiveness & we need all your heads to do battle with this. Thanks again


----------



## lesm (8 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> Although it becomes payable on that date and remains with whoever held at the record date, thinking about it more, I suspect from a legal/accounting perspective that rather than the liability being 'created' on the record date, the legal liability exists already and is attached to the security and transferred with it up to that date.  It is effectively detached from the security after the record date (and remains with the registered holder of the securities on the record date).
> 
> btw lesm, in case you haven't seen my earlier posts - I'm not a holder of these - I've just taken an interest in the situation because it seems pretty harsh for those that did get caught up in it.
> 
> I've also been a bit suprised at some of the things that turned up when I read through the BCS announcements.




Correct, the liability remains with the party who was the registered holder on the relevant date. After this date, if the shares are sold, the liability will not be transferred.

Am aware that you are not a holder, but trying to help these people out.

While some things in the announcements may be surprising or appear to be, it would depend upon whether they are material to the situation or not.

While it may be a harsh outcome, this itself does not necessarily render the contract unenforceable under common law.

The involved parties really do need proper legal advice on this, as to their legal position and the options available to them.


----------



## Julia (8 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Bushie, can you outline the nature of the legal advice you received?


----------



## thermalmonster (8 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

From converstions with Rocket it appears we have a couple of possible avenues.
Without speaking to Rocket first I am not going to publicly disclose this delicate info, without aproval of the others.
I will however PM Julia & Cuttlefish since they have been very helpful and try and keep you informed.
Needless to say ,all those involved ,I believe have been coppied in on these e-mails.
We are taking a very pro active approach to the situation. ( Big thanks to Rocket)
You may or may not be supprised that other share holders have also come forward to join our "Action group"


----------



## sails (8 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Bushie said:


> ...I have made contact with my local member for Qld, & Federal Member...




Bushie, this is election year for Qld - hopefully Anna Bligh wouldn't want too much negative publicity on this issue either.

I understand those that say the Qld govt or any other instutional type party shouldn't have to pick up the tab for those who have been caught unwittingly, however, they do have much deeper pockets to wait it out for this project to become profitable.  It is a road that is bound to get a lot of traffic and, in time could end up doing OK.  QIC has about a 10% stake and hasn't bailed.

Interesting that Sir O says this is the first time something like this has happened with an instalment security.  I believe he said he used to be a broker.  Hopefully this "first time" situation will bring about better safety measures to prevent mums and dads being able to trade these sofisticated securities online in the future.

We watch Air Crash Investigations each week and it is through finding out the cause of these disasters and implementing the necessary changes which has made air travel so much safer these days (mechanically, pilot training, etc.)  Hopefully, good will also eventuate from this bcsca debacle.

Bushie, have you guys considered appoaching the current institutional investors to see if any of them would be willing to increase their stake by a small amount by taking your shares?   Yeah - probably a long shot...

Just my thoughts...


----------



## sails (8 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> From converstions with Rocket it appears we have a couple of possible avenues.
> Without speaking to Rocket first I am not going to publicly disclose this delicate info, without aproval of the others.
> I will however PM Julia & Cuttlefish since they have been very helpful and try and keep you informed.
> Needless to say ,all those involved ,I believe have been coppied in on these e-mails.
> ...




Thermal, I think you are very wise to keep it all very close to the chest.  Agree with letting Julia and Cuttlefish know as they have really gone out of their way to help.

Good to hear you have found others caught in this thing.  Would be good if there was a way to contact any others that may be utterly terrified and not know about your Action Group yet.

All the best


----------



## Enzyme (8 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Bushie said:


> Sounds interesting only to date we only know of 5 of us in contact, we would need to access the registry somehow to find out who the other 100's are.  I am in the (no money) department therefore I can only try to give my shares/units away to any takers no matter how small a parcel off market. As on market I can only move $500 worth which instantly amounts to a $1million dollar debt. However I liked "Absolutely's" suggestion - anyone who wants from 100 to 1000 shares can have them. Free. I am not selling them, therefore I am breaking no law I know of - surely I can give them away?



Yes.  You CAN give them away:

1.  Buy a return ticket to Zimbabwe.  
2.  Find a desperate local.  From media reports that would be about 100% of the population.
3.  Offer to pay them $US1000 to sign an off-market transfer form.  Fully explain to them the consequences of their signing the form:  That there will be some debt collection process attempted, but that is unlikely to have any substance given the virtually nil chance of recovery.  Aslo explain that they could avoid that possible debt collection process if they transfer the shares to someone else before April.
4.  If they agree, then get them to sign the form.  Video the signing for reference.
5.  Take the form back to Australia and make sure it gets where it is supposed to go.

The total cost of this approach for the trip, incentive payment, and expenses would be around $4k-$6k.  I bet that would be much better value for money and far more successful then engaging in a prolonged legal battle which could continue for months AFTER you've been bankrupted.

I think the best form of cooperation between the briscon shareholders on here would be to jointly fund such a trip, sending a representative over with a transfer form for everyone.

Of course you could swap Zimbabwe for another troubled country closer to home if you liked.  I think that for someone unable to feed their family the prospect of getting a relative large sum of cash at the cost of receiving a nasty letter or two from an Australian debt collection service would look pretty attractive.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (8 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> Sir O, thanks for your comments.  I appreciate that you can't actually offer advice, but I suspect that the people affected here, especially Bushie, are probably too upset and stressed to easily follow the advice in your last sentence.
> Can you offer them some clues as to anything they may legitimately do at this stage?




What I was getting at Julia is if you are going to default anyway - that it's better to have your shares sold earlier rather than later  - but after reading bushie's upload (thanks bushie) - it's not going to work like that.  They will do an auction, so instead of the shares dribbling out as they determine who is defaulting they have organised it so that the whole lot hit the market at the same time (and are auctioned). It'll _probably_ be a bookbuild process - but wow that could be a %^&* of a deal to try and sell. This means that *everyone will get the same price*. (and sorry but that price is going to be @&^! because the auction is a fire sale and the buyers know it).

There is no way therefore to jump the line.

Honestly if my house was on the line for this - I'd be trying to transfer those shares elsewhere.

Sir O


----------



## cuttlefish (8 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Bushie said:


> Hi Cuttlefish, yes, we are all pursuing different avenues. Rocket 12 is busy sussing out lawyers, I have a complaint lodged with ASIC, we are all in touch with Australian Shareholders Association who is advocating on our behalf to all parties on the other side, I have made contact with my local member for Qld, & Federal Member, have had 2 visits to lawyers, & 1 to my accountant.
> Regarding the media, ASA is cautious in this area at present as they are hoping to resolve this mess without going hugely & embarrassingly public. As Trevor Rowe of Brisconnect states, the integrity of the project is important & if we publicly damn them, what hope will we have of fair play?  I would much prefer that it be resolved in a quiet & calm manner rather than be a tv target for 'idiot of the month'. As you all know from this thread, until the details get ground about out in the open, many will have a poor view of those caught up in the trap.
> I really appreciate the thought that went into your response, thank you for airing all of these directions, any & all suggestions are being explored for legality or plausability. Desparation breeds inventiveness & we need all your heads to do battle with this. Thanks again




Bushie - its great to hear that your all working together and have taken so many steps.  I also get your point about the media which makes sense - the ASA would have experience in managing the media side of controversial issues  - so its good that you have them there to assist with these sorts of issues/decisions.

I won't ask too many questions because as thermal points out it is a public forum - but it sounds like you are in touch with the right sort of professionals and getting some good advice, and its just good to hear that you are all actively working to resolve your situation.  Even if it doesn't work out as hoped at least you'll have given it a shot which is the only thing you can do.


----------



## cuttlefish (8 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



lesm said:


> While some things in the announcements may be surprising or appear to be, it would depend upon whether they are material to the situation or not.
> 
> While it may be a harsh outcome, this itself does not necessarily render the contract unenforceable under common law.
> 
> The involved parties really do need proper legal advice on this, as to their legal position and the options available to them.




Yes I agree with what you are saying.   Anything of interest in the announcements is possibly more useable in the publicity/PR stakes than necessarily having any significant influence on legal outcomes - though the stuff about the substantial shareholders notices, including some from MQG,  referring to the class as 'Fully Paid'  (my interpretation only refer to originals) may be relevant as a supporting argument. (with the usual caveat that I'm not a lawyer so these are laymans opinions only).


----------



## cuttlefish (8 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> From converstions with Rocket it appears we have a couple of possible avenues.
> Without speaking to Rocket first I am not going to publicly disclose this delicate info, without aproval of the others.
> I will however PM Julia & Cuttlefish since they have been very helpful and try and keep you informed.
> Needless to say ,all those involved ,I believe have been coppied in on these e-mails.
> ...




Thermal - I agree that its a good idea to be careful about what you put up in the forums.  No need to send me a PM either - its probably best that your 'team' manage the dissemination of information and also start to manage any PR/publicity surrounding your efforts in an orchestrated way - and this forum is a public communication vehicle just as any other media outlet.

It sounds like everyone is doing the right things and in touch with the right sort of people - I'm happy to leave you all to focus on it.


----------



## Absolutely (8 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Bushie, thanks for PMing me. I am seriously considering your offer - just want to think this thing through a bit, and I think I have got at least a couple of months to do so. (Unless Macquarie suddenly starts buying that huge pile of shares sitting at 0.1c - which I am not discounting as an impossibility).

To my mind the money is going to be paid up by somebody - if not by the shareholders, then by the underwriters. The money is then going to be spent building a road. The road is going to produce an income. The income is going to produce value for owners of the shares - at some point those shares are going to be worth something. Might be a while - but Brisbane is a rapidly developing city. I travel there often and this road from the airport to the city is definitely going to get used. (Think Sydney's Eastern Distributor). Reputable companies have already spent time and money on statistics, working out useage probablilities and what toll is required to provide a return for shareholders.

Getting a few of these for almost nothing right now, provided you only get what you are comfortably able to risk on the next two installments may not be the worst investment one could make - thinking 5+ years from now.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (8 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Absolutely said:


> Bushie, thanks for PMing me. I am seriously considering your offer - just want to think this thing through a bit, and I think I have got at least a couple of months to do so. (Unless Macquarie suddenly starts buying that huge pile of shares sitting at 0.1c - which I am not discounting as an impossibility).
> 
> To my mind the money is going to be paid up by somebody - if not by the shareholders, then by the underwriters. The money is then going to be spent building a road. The road is going to produce an income. The income is going to produce value for owners of the shares - at some point those shares are going to be worth something. Might be a while - but Brisbane is a rapidly developing city. I travel there often and this road from the airport to the city is definitely going to get used. (Think Sydney's Eastern Distributor). Reputable companies have already spent time and money on statistics, working out useage probablilities and what toll is required to provide a return for shareholders.
> 
> Getting a few of these for almost nothing right now, provided you only get what you are comfortably able to risk on the next two installments may not be the worst investment one could make - thinking 5+ years from now.





@ Absolutely

I can't provide you with advice. No advice provided here but have you *really* thought about this?

Are you aware of what the effect of a fire sale auction price will have on the value of post 2nd instalment share price will be?

Have you compared the share price movement to it's closest peers? Eg What has happened to MIG, CEU, TCL, RCY??? 

RCY is it's closest peer - its in the same city, connects to the airport link being done by brisconnections, and doesn't have an existing road at present (still being finalized -but a LOT closer to completion than BCSCA). So have a look at that share price and add whatever you think is appropriate as a risk weighted measure for the following factors:-

* Large Stock Overhang - and I mean LARGE - weighing down on the share price for several years.
* A completely fractured share registry 
* Potential loss of reputation and brand damage 
* Potential Litigation from Macquarie and Deutsche 
* Potential Litigation from Shareholders and Class actions

Remember that many of these infrastructure plays are designed to have _just_ enough funds raised to get them to the end of the build period with a _small_ buffer while traffic on the road builds up and brings in revenue. If they have to spend money on.....

* Exorbitant Expenses in keeping the registry and market informed.
* Large legal costs from litigation
* Smaller Interest payments (because they have to wait for the underwriter to pay up rather than getting the money up front)

etc etc etc. Where does the money come from?

Sorry Bushie et al, you'd have to PAY me to take these off your hands - and that would be AFTER the 2nd instalment was paid.

Sir O


----------



## cuttlefish (8 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sir Osisofliver said:


> Sorry Bushie et al, you'd have to PAY me to take these off your hands - and that would be AFTER the 2nd instalment was paid.
> 
> Sir O




Pretty much my sentiments as well - I can't see them trading anywhere near a dollar after the second instalment has been paid.  



			
				Absolutely said:
			
		

> (Unless Macquarie suddenly starts buying that huge pile of shares sitting at 0.1c - which I am not discounting as an impossibility).




Why would Macquarie do that - they've only fairly recently finished offloading their entire holding - and they will still be stuck with the bill for the instalments that default (a lot by the sounds of it - probably including a lot of the ones they sold on market this year that were bought by uninformed purchasers) and end up with a whole bunch more stock that they will also probably want to offload to recoup some of the money spent on the underwriting, and to avoid further costs in the final instalment fee.


----------



## Absolutely (8 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sir Osisofliver said:


> I can't provide you with advice. No advice provided here but have you *really* thought about this?




That's what I'm doing now. This sort of thing needs some thinking outside of the box to assess solutions for those in the predicament, but there may also be possible opportunities. Perhaps recognising that opportunity will lead to the solution. I don't know.

Whilst I totally agree with all your sentiments regarding the risk of investing in such infrastructure projects, I think the huge loss in share price value in 3 months could of removed a lot of that risk. Like I said previously, big and international players have assessed and underwritten the project, they must of seen value even before this debacle. And at the current price (ie free) small guys like me can afford to make a balanced decision on the investment, knowing the liability and prepared to lose a comparatively small investment. But the possible flip side is that if the project produces the projected income in the future, the pay off could be huge.

Cuttlefish it would be very smart for Macqaurie to buy back, but they are under no immediate pressure to do so and can hold off right to April. Thing is they may end up with a lot of those shares and the associated liability anyway. Pursuing shareholders through the courts will be costly for them. Perhaps there will be an informal approach to investors like Bushie to transfer those shares back to them as it would reflect badly on Macquarie to attempt to bankrupt those sort of people. (Bushie (and others) might have to declare all assets before they do so however). It would be just plain stupid for Macquarie to go after small time investors who have made an honest mistake in court IMO. Macquarie I have no doubt started the fire sale and caused the massive destruction in share price. I suspect the other project partners are furious with them. Macquarie could save face and solve the problem by buying back in at a much lower price then they sold for. And like I said before, it may even be good business for them in the long run.


----------



## cuttlefish (8 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Absolutely said:


> Cuttlefish it would be very smart for Macqaurie to buy back, but they are under no immediate pressure to do so and can hold off right to April. Thing is they may end up with a lot of those shares and the associated liability anyway. Pursuing shareholders through the courts will be costly for them. Perhaps there will be an informal approach to investors like Bushie to transfer those shares back to them as it would reflect badly on Macquarie to attempt to bankrupt those sort of people.




As far as I can tell it is at Macquaries discretion as to how heavily the shareholders that don't front up for the instalment are pursued - but even if they don't pursue them at all Macquarie will still get the shares of any holders that default for free (and Macquarie will still be lumped with paying the instalments on all of them).   The odds are that they will then want to offload those 'second instalment paid' shares to try to recoup some of the expense of paying the instalments.




> knowing the liability and prepared to lose a comparatively small investment.




If there was a true market for the shares the stock price would be negative (in my opinion) - therefore if you get shares for free you are not getting anything for free - you are effectively locking in an immediate loss (in my opinion).  

People on here have stated that they would be willing to pay people to take their shares - thats a negative share price.


----------



## Sunder (8 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Absolutely said:


> I think the huge loss in share price value in 3 months could of removed a lot of that risk.




Are you thinking of this as a $1 share that's lost 99.9% of its value, or a $3 share that's lost 33.32% of its value, and is trying to make a hole in the floor to go lower?

Even if you think a share that has lost 1/3rd of its peak value is low risk, I think Babcock would have been a great investment for you at $20...


----------



## Julia (8 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Absolutely said:


> Cuttlefish it would be very smart for Macqaurie to buy back,



Why?



> but they are under no immediate pressure to do so and can hold off right to April. Thing is they may end up with a lot of those shares and the associated liability anyway. Pursuing shareholders through the courts will be costly for them. Perhaps there will be an informal approach to investors like Bushie to transfer those shares back to them as it would reflect badly on Macquarie to attempt to bankrupt those sort of people.



You must be joking.  Do you really think Macquarie will give a rat's about what 'reflects on them'.  They're not a charity.  They're a business and their focus should be on looking after their shareholders.  




> (Bushie (and others) might have to declare all assets before they do so however). It would be just plain stupid for Macquarie to go after small time investors who have made an honest mistake in court IMO.



OK, let's say Macquarie just say: ' oh well, we'll ignore the rights of our shareholders and act kindly towards all the people who didn't understand what they were buying'. 
 What sort of a precedent would that set?  



> Macquarie I have no doubt started the fire sale and caused the massive destruction in share price. I suspect the other project partners are furious with them. Macquarie could save face and solve the problem by buying back in at a much lower price then they sold for. And like I said before, it may even be good business for them in the long run.



It's not Macquarie that needs to be seen to be 'saving face'.


----------



## Enzyme (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Cobber said:


> What is the SRN and where do I find it?



Sorry Cobber, I missed your reply earlier.

The SRN is the Share Registration Number.  It uniquely identifies your share holding.  link

It should have been provided to you in the paperwork sent out to you after you purchased the shares.  If you can't find it try emailing investors@brisconnections.com.au or registrars@linkmarketservices.com.au or use one of the contact details here for help.  (Link Market Services do the share registry for Brisconnections, which is why the links to them).


----------



## Enzyme (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Just to add to what I said to Cobber, I'm not sure if it makes any difference, but here is a link to the transfer form that Link use:  link


----------



## TheAbyss (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

A lot of conjecture about what MacQuarie should do. MQG are have bigger fish to fry at the moment as they focus on selling a few billion more in cash burning assets as they try and retain some semblence of profitability.

Their valuations of assets are being written down reluctantly at the moment and the news will get worse before it gets better for them. The initial valuation of BCS is what caused the problem with over inflated traffic figures etc. No intimate knowledge however i suspect most of MQG assets are overvalued which is why they are being written down slowly, not to mention the contribution from the current financial situation. They sold their loan book to Bendigo and Adelaide banks for $2.9b (retained $500m) and it has been written down $900m already That means their $500m assett is now worth less than $350m. Wait and see what happens to Bendigo bank when MQG start flogging off their stake holding to raise more cash in the next few months.

I cant see them writing any cheques to anyone including BCS stakeholders any time soon. Bright side is they wont want to spend a truck load on legal fees chasing BCSCA holders. Not to say they wont sell the debt to someone and call it a profit.

Any one want to buy an airport road?

Lot to play out here yet and i do hope that something satisfactory eventuates for the shareholders not too mention others such as the Qld Government, Leightons (who wrote down $200m due to BCS very recently) and all others including we Brisbanites who desperately need a decent road to the airport


----------



## Rastan (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

not to go off on too big of a tangent here - but FFS why is building a damned road done via a public company which will charge a toll etc? For goodness sakes we pay so much freaking income tax as well as car registration and fuel tax, now the roads themselves cant even be paid for??? 

IIRC when the gateway 'paid for itself' the toll was to dissapear, yeh right - thanks politicians - I'm just a little erked as the little guy (the one who has to pay rego and buy fuel) is the one getting squeezed here - we all don't have paid for cars like most of the pollies...


----------



## TheAbyss (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



TheAbyss said:


> A lot of conjecture about what MacQuarie should do. MQG are have bigger fish to fry at the moment as they focus on selling a few billion more in cash burning assets as they try and retain some semblence of profitability.
> 
> Their valuations of assets are being written down reluctantly at the moment and the news will get worse before it gets better for them. The initial valuation of BCS is what caused the problem with over inflated traffic figures etc. No intimate knowledge however i suspect most of MQG assets are overvalued which is why they are being written down slowly, not to mention the contribution from the current financial situation. *They sold their loan book to Bendigo and Adelaide banks for $2.9b (retained $500m) and it has been written down $900m already That means their $500m assett is now worth less than $350m. *Wait and see what happens to Bendigo bank when MQG start flogging off their stake holding to raise more cash in the next few months.
> 
> ...




Bit ambiguous. The sold the margin loan business for a lot less than 2.9b which was the book value not the selling price. Sorry.


----------



## noirua (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Whole project looks dead in the water. Best left for better times, maybe around 2016-18.


----------



## skc (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



TheAbyss said:


> Bit ambiguous. The sold the margin loan business for a lot less than 2.9b which was the book value not the selling price. Sorry.




err..i think 2.9b was the value of the loan book, not the book value!!


----------



## TheAbyss (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



skc said:


> err..i think 2.9b was the value of the loan book, not the book value!!




Yes. There goes any credibility i had. Can a mod  delete the post please.


----------



## Julia (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



TheAbyss said:


> Yes. There goes any credibility i had.



No, it doesn't.  The rest of your remarks were entirely valid.


----------



## awg (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I hate repeating myself, but I will anyway

I can see a business opportunity here.

for an individual with looming inevitable bankruptcy.

Form company ( B.U.M Enterprises)

Contact BSC shareholders (from publicly available register, just like David Tweed)

offer to buy shares, charge big fat transaction fee (like Macquarie)

buy as many as you can, 

Get legal and accountancy advice first before to make sure no regs are breached.

make hay while sun shines

hello allan bond


----------



## prawn_86 (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Why not do it AWG?


----------



## skc (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



awg said:


> I hate repeating myself, but I will anyway
> 
> I can see a business opportunity here.
> 
> ...




What a catch 22. If you are able to make any money from those transaction fees, than they become assets of the company which will go towards meeting the obligation anyway! Otherwise you will have to move the cash out of the business before the liability fall due. As a company director, I think it is illegal to do that knowing that you have a big debt to be met - so definitely check with your accountant, lawyer, QC etc.


----------



## Sunder (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



skc said:


> What a catch 22. If you are able to make any money from those transaction fees, than they become assets of the company which will go towards meeting the obligation anyway! Otherwise you will have to move the cash out of the business before the liability fall due. As a company director, I think it is illegal to do that knowing that you have a big debt to be met - so definitely check with your accountant, lawyer, QC etc.




The protection of a proprietary limited company can be pierced, if it can be demonstrated to a balance of probabilities, that the company was formed for the sole purpose of limiting or avoiding liability.

So unless you could convince the judge that this was a legitimate profit making scheme, then the director would be personally liable for the debt. 

As usual, I'm not a lawyer, so DYOR, but that's my interpretation of corporate law.


----------



## awg (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



prawn_86 said:


> Why not do it AWG?




I personally cant do it cause I got heaps of assets

However, I am VERY curious as to the possibilities

Almost curious enough to ring my accountant and solicitor, both share market pro's and ask some questions.

However, I do have a somewhat of a moral problem, undertaking such an enterprise, whereby I make a profit (fee) ,where there are certain moral issues, and possibly legal ramifications.

Basically, I am in a position where I dont need to.

(Time is an issue, as well)

I believe the advice I would receive from my crew would be not to involve myself.

Mainly risk/reward.

In the past, I have done some tremendously risky things, often against advice, which resulted in both huge profits and losses. 

These days I try to be a little steadier

Honestly, the main reason I have championed this approach is to help out the poor b*stards caught up

Having said all this, if someone is prepared to contact me and provide some detail of what advice they have received, I will undertake to contact my advisers and discuss the matter. IN detail, and confidence, no cost.


Please forward contact details if interested, I definitely have ALL the contacts needed to make it happen ( including the b@ms)


----------



## awg (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> The protection of a proprietary limited company can be pierced, if it can be demonstrated to a balance of probabilities, that the company was formed for the sole purpose of limiting or avoiding liability.
> 
> So unless you could convince the judge that this was a legitimate profit making scheme, then the director would be personally liable for the debt.
> 
> As usual, I'm not a lawyer, so DYOR, but that's my interpretation of corporate law.






like I said (for hypothetical purposes)

It HAS to be a person unequivocally headed for bankruptcy!!!

they can spend the profits that they withdraw as CASH, in as profligate a manner as they wish.:burn:

Including paying consultant fees, however they wish.

Such an individual, would probably do a very poor job of record keeping.

No cash or other assets would likely be retained.

The money might help THEIR family.

I definitely do not wish or advise anyone to do anything that breaches any regulation of God or man.

I wonder how well David Tweed (not his real name), sleeps at night.


----------



## Bushie (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Re the Publicly available Registry.  Where can I get onto it?


----------



## awg (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I think the request is made direct to the company

not the share registry ( Link, in this case)

Easiest thing to do is ring the Company officials or Share registry and ask them!

here is a few links that talk about David Tweeds methods

http://thomasr.org/blog/2004/12/david-tweed-is-c.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/call-for-curb-on-registry-access/2005/08/08/1123353261902.html

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/200610/s1763746.htm


----------



## Gunlom (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Been following this thread for a while and just my 2cents...

If the company is going to come after small shareholders for the out standing amounts, which by all appearances they are.

If I was going have to go down this path of potentially being  bankrupt or debt collectors chasing me.

Say my total assets are $500k and these shares gave me a exposure of about $1 mil. ( the debt collectors are looking at 50c in the dollar) which is a reasonable return for the debt collectors.

In my view it would be better to get your assets to debt ratio as low as possible to about maybe 5c - 10c in the dollar and make it as hard as possible for the debt collectors. Get some more (plenty of people here would love to off load some)

The bigger the debt the more say and power you have in negotating with them. And potentially make it a total waste of time coming after you. 

If you have all your assets at risk, it's better to go down swinging at take the fight up to them....
I would...
But this is just my 2 cents worth.

Good luck to all holders


----------



## thermalmonster (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Yes Gunlom, I think that was what Mr Garpul Gumnut was on about.

If you look at the Comsec website there are about 105 million shares for sale at 0.001 cents
and another 22 million or so at 0.002
If everyone transfered their shares to someone then they would have a bit of clout.
Perhaps even be able to call a series of board  meetings and wind the company up if enough share holders agreed to it
( but then i could be talking complete crock).


----------



## drsmith (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

The following article in The Australian may be of interest. It's from early December and may have been posted before.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24735838-5012436,00.html


----------



## brty (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I have a relative that is virtually bankrupt, yet no one is chasing him because they know he has no assets, nor is likely to gain any in the immediate future. He is over 30 and lives with his mother, and on the dole as almost unemployable.

If he was the sole director, and paid dividends to shareholders in a company (B.U.M)that was formed to profit from market opportunities (dividends paid monthly??) hmmm....

If a company was to take over control of Brissconnect, by accepting money to take BSCSA shares, they could make Brissconnect buy back shares from shareholders, say at a price of $1 for every million shares, or do all sorts of other things (like wind up the company).

just a thought.

brty


----------



## Jayan (9 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Has this been posted?

*Trevor Rowe joins Inside Business
Date : 16/11/2008
Reporter: Alan Kohler*

ALAN KOHLER, PRESENTER: The cheapest stock on the ASX right now is BrisConnections, which is building Brisbane's $3.4 billion Airport link toll road.
It's one tenth of a cent, the lowest possible price for a listed security. And at that price it's attracting interest. This week, tens of millions changed hands, although you can get a million of them for a thousand bucks.

http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/content/2007/s2420909.htm


----------



## thermalmonster (10 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I dont think any changed hands?

Just people falling off the back of the waggon who need to re-list them for sale.

What are you on about?


----------



## cuttlefish (11 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Thermal the article Jayan is referring to that the comments came from was written back on the 16th of November 08, when there had still been stock changing hands.


----------



## Bushie (12 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

see
www.qbf.qic.com.au/team/rowe.cfm 
He sure does get around, I wonder how he can give 100% to any one of his projects? 
Also, as he has his finger in the pie of Brisconnect, & QIC, & ASX, is there any reason why we should not suspect collusion or planning or fixing this in advance? I almost see that smart people would target little/ignorant/uneducated people as grain for the mill to grind up. (seeing as so many others are so fond of analogies I thought this might be pertinent.)


----------



## Struzball (12 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



awg said:


> like I said (for hypothetical purposes)
> 
> It HAS to be a person unequivocally headed for bankruptcy!!!




How does a person headed for bankruptcy get a hold of the $100,000+ to buy the shares, even for $0.001 each?


----------



## Bushie (12 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Struzball said:


> How does a person headed for bankruptcy get a hold of the $100,000+ to buy the shares, even for $0.001 each?




We don't want to sell him the shares, we are quite willing to GIVE him or anyone else the shares with an off market transfer. Others have suggested that an amount of money could change hands in favour of the recipient, however that would be a one on one negotiation as we don't have a lot of money so that would be difficult for us. Also keep in mind that this is all theory & supposition.


----------



## GreatPig (12 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> Perhaps even be able to call a series of board meetings and wind the company up if enough share holders agreed to it



By my understanding, when a company is wound up the unpaid amount on any shares becomes payable to the company, so I don't think winding up the company would release the shareholders from their obligation. And I believe Brisconnections has a lot of debt, so I doubt there'd be any leftovers afterwards to pay back to the shareholders.

GP


----------



## Julia (12 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Bushie said:


> see
> www.qbf.qic.com.au/team/rowe.cfm
> He sure does get around, I wonder how he can give 100% to any one of his projects?



It's not at all unusual for directors to be on many Boards and to be chairman of several companies.



> Also, as he has his finger in the pie of Brisconnect, & QIC, & ASX, is there any reason why we should not suspect collusion or planning or fixing this in advance?



To what end?  What would Mr Rowe have to gain if this were the case?




> I almost see that smart people would target little/ignorant/uneducated people as grain for the mill to grind up. (seeing as so many others are so fond of analogies I thought this might be pertinent.)



Again, what would the company, or Trevor Rowe in particular, have to gain by allegedly 'targeting little people'.
Let's remember that the information was out there in the market place so, whilst I'm very sympathetic to your distress, it doesn't seem at all reasonable to me to make such allegations as you have above.


----------



## thermalmonster (12 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Its all just a complete F*** up.
I was looking through some of the old anouncements.
The form 603 substantial share holders.
Some are listed as Fully Paid
Some partly paid.
If the company sec cant get it right what hope has a Pommy $500 buck investor???
They cant even decide themselves by the admission of their own paperwork.
I reckon there will be some serious ass kicking over this...


----------



## Prospector (13 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hello all. Have been offline for a few days but can get access now and other than emails this is the next spot I checked to see if there had been any breakthroughs for you. Sounds like a lot of behind the scenes things happening.


----------



## awg (13 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Struzball said:


> How does a person headed for bankruptcy get a hold of the $100,000+ to buy the shares, even for $0.001 each?





Purchaser may possibly pay market rate for shares but made via off-market purchase and transfer.

Funding could be way of fee agreement, between buyer and seller.

You would'nt need $100,000, as that would buy 100,000,000


----------



## apra143 (13 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Did Julia ever get a response to the 2nd email sent out?

In terms of financial ruin, I thought Telstra were bad with their crazy $150/GB excess plans - but even they are happy to waive fees the first time. Luckily getting a share trading account is not as important to mums and dads as getting broadband for their kids.


----------



## Julia (13 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



apra143 said:


> Did Julia ever get a response to the 2nd email sent out?




No.  Didn't really expect to.  They made their position clear in the initial response, I guess.


----------



## Struzball (13 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



awg said:


> You would'nt need $100,000, as that would buy 100,000,000




Oh, so we don't want the bankruptee to buy the entire company? :evilburn:


----------



## LRG (13 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

this share has been bad news all round.  cant believe people got caught not knowing they owed 2 more installment of $1 each


----------



## shaunQ (13 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I thought of creating a web site that was the opposite of the normal share market, rather than paying to purchase shares. You get paid to buy shares.

So one person puts on they will pay someone 10c to take the shares (completely knowing that it incurs $2 liability).

Another person says they will do it for 30c, the amount of money people would be willing to do it for and or pay, my vary depending on time and their circumstances, and a market could be created.

It may be possible to get paid $20K and onsell that debt for $15K?


----------



## Dondi (14 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



shaunQ said:


> I thought of creating a web site that was the opposite of the normal share market, rather than paying to purchase shares. You get paid to buy shares.
> 
> So one person puts on they will pay someone 10c to take the shares (completely knowing that it incurs $2 liability).
> 
> ...




Just on that is there any limit to the amount of off-market transfers that you do or the period between transfers?


----------



## Sunder (14 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



shaunQ said:


> It may be possible to get paid $20K and onsell that debt for $15K?




Macquarie is suggesting a trading range AFTER the next installment of about 30c, so for a sane, informed person to buy it would require an offer of $70c in the dollar to take the liability. 

This might be a relief to some smaller buyers, but for those with millions of dollars of liability, unlikely they'd be able to come up with the millions of dollars to sell it.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (14 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Macquarie is suggesting a trading range AFTER the next installment of about 30c, so for a sane, informed person to buy it would require an offer of $70c in the dollar to take the liability.
> 
> This might be a relief to some smaller buyers, but for those with millions of dollars of liability, unlikely they'd be able to come up with the millions of dollars to sell it.




Hey Sunder - where did you hear that trading range?

If that is the case...

Then those that default and are sold into the market via auction...

$500 @ $0.001 = 500,000 shares

Debt $500,000
Sale price $0.30 @ 500,000 = $150,000.00
and they will pursue for the remaining $350,000.00

Ouch!

Sir O


----------



## Sunder (14 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sir Osisofliver said:


> Hey Sunder - where did you hear that trading range?




I'm sure it was either news.com.au or smh.com.au, but a google search of both sites turn nothing up. The article was in the first week of January some time, which is really annoying because it's too far back to search in their own search engine, and not far back enough to be guaranteed to have been spidered by google.

Edit: Just as a side note, if it does trade stably at 30c after the first installment, I probably will buy 5000 or so of these shares and pay the second installment. It probably won't be a good investment for many years yet, but I figure with this large a negative press about it, it's going to be oversold whenever it finds a bottom. If not, I know my liability will only be for another $5000 or so


----------



## mikeyfinn111 (14 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Guys, I brought BCSCA in October at 325,000 units at .002c. I have only found out about his whole thing yesterday!!

I brought them on Commsec and NOWHERE did it say that they were only partially paid units only when you receive the buy confirmation after the sale in small writing and even that wasnt clear. It was my very first purchase of shares so I decided to put a small $650.00 in a cheap stock to see how it all works and hopefully make a little profit. I now need to come up with $325,000 by April and another $325,000 in Jan 2010. I have nothing, no money and very limited knowledge of the sharemarket obviously. Can anybody explain to me without any Jargon of what the hell my options are. How do I find an investor to transfer with?
Im 24 and about to declare myself bankrupt over a $650.00 share pruchase. This is beyond laughable!!


----------



## mikeyfinn111 (14 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

There needs to be a clear number of people affected by this so we can rally together and put up a class action against this. There must be hundreds. Its not practicle for MACQ to summon hundreds to court knowing they are going to get nothing.


----------



## sails (14 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



mikeyfinn111 said:


> There needs to be a clear number of people affected by this so we can rally together and put up a class action against this. There must be hundreds. Its not practicle for MACQ to summon hundreds to court knowing they are going to get nothing.




There are a few others on this thread.  Look for posts by Thermalmonster, Bushie and rocket12.  Their horror stories are woven into this long thread.

Rocket has been proactive in getting together those who have been caught.  Couldn't find him on the ASF member list, but he still has a public profile with a link to an email address.  https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/member.php?u=22784.  If the link doesn't work, just do a search for rocket12 or perhaps sending a pm to Bushie or Thermalmonster by clicking on their name in one of their posts.

Suggest you get in touch with him as it appears there is already a group working with the ASA.

Hopefully there will be a good outcome for all of you, but it doesn't look good at this stage.


----------



## Dondi (14 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



mikeyfinn111 said:


> Guys, I brought BCSCA in October at 325,000 units at .002c. I have only found out about his whole thing yesterday!!
> 
> I brought them on Commsec and NOWHERE did it say that they were only partially paid units only when you receive the buy confirmation after the sale in small writing and even that wasnt clear. It was my very first purchase of shares so I decided to put a small $650.00 in a cheap stock to see how it all works and hopefully make a little profit. I now need to come up with $325,000 by April and another $325,000 in Jan 2010. I have nothing, no money and very limited knowledge of the sharemarket obviously. Can anybody explain to me without any Jargon of what the hell my options are. How do I find an investor to transfer with?
> Im 24 and about to declare myself bankrupt over a $650.00 share pruchase. This is beyond laughable!!




Hi Mikeyfinn111, nightmare isn't it!?

We have a well established action group already working round the clock on this.  Please PM me and I'll give you all the details.

Dondi


----------



## Cats (14 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Dondi said:


> Hi Mikeyfinn111, nightmare isn't it!?
> 
> We have a well established action group already working round the clock on this.  Please PM me and I'll give you all the details.
> 
> Dondi



Would like to know about your action group.........please send details to e mail admin@lunagel.com.au 
We are also stuck in the Brisconnect nightmare.
regards,
cats


----------



## adman0001 (14 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Help!! I'm another one!! Been losing sleep over all this, just moved from QLD to Newcastle, been camping down the coast for 3 weeks,haven't even got a house yet. Using my brothers pc and finally stumbled onto this site. I've got half a million of them at .1 of a cent, a measly $500 bucks worth,I just can't believe this is happening, have'nt even had the courage to tell my wife yet cause they're in her name! I was just pure speculating to see if i could double our money for X- mas Hols. I wish I had nothing if all this falls on us, cause I've been working for 21 yrs, just a bum sparkie with a dodgy back, but have managed to accumulate a little for my retirement yrs. There has got to be a way out of this. I made some calls today and finally got directed to Slater & Morgan who love this sort of stuff apparently. Very busy, they reckon they will get back to me within 48hrs, by the sound of it, they are talking to quite a few other ppl as well. Please include me in this action group. Started new job, I don't get home till 6 at night, can only respond then and later I guess, but want to talk to ppl concerned. Try and Sleep easy.Adman


----------



## Dondi (14 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



adman0001 said:


> Help!! I'm another one!! Been losing sleep over all this, just moved from QLD to Newcastle, been camping down the coast for 3 weeks,haven't even got a house yet. Using my brothers pc and finally stumbled onto this site. I've got half a million of them at .1 of a cent, a measly $500 bucks worth,I just can't believe this is happening, have'nt even had the courage to tell my wife yet cause they're in her name! I was just pure speculating to see if i could double our money for X- mas Hols. I wish I had nothing if all this falls on us, cause I've been working for 21 yrs, just a bum sparkie with a dodgy back, but have managed to accumulate a little for my retirement yrs. There has got to be a way out of this. I made some calls today and finally got directed to Slater & Morgan who love this sort of stuff apparently. Very busy, they reckon they will get back to me within 48hrs, by the sound of it, they are talking to quite a few other ppl as well. Please include me in this action group. Started new job, I don't get home till 6 at night, can only respond then and later I guess, but want to talk to ppl concerned. Try and Sleep easy.Adman




Hi Adman,

Email oasis1471@gmail.com and I'll fill you in on what our group has been doing.

Dondi


----------



## Struzball (15 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I would imagine it would be in the companies best interests to buy back all the shares.  The shares are worthless anyway, and they'll never be able to get the millions of dollars off the small time investors, so I can't see they'd be any worse off.

Why can't they do that? Would there be any problem for the company if they were to do that? (besides the initial cost in buying all the shares @ 0.001)


----------



## Fatcat (15 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Struzball said:


> I would imagine it would be in the companies best interests to buy back all the shares.  The shares are worthless anyway, and they'll never be able to get the millions of dollars off the small time investors, so I can't see they'd be any worse off.
> 
> Why can't they do that? Would there be any problem for the company if they were to do that? (besides the initial cost in buying all the shares @ 0.001)





Do you really think that is a possibility with Macquarie being involved??


----------



## Sunder (15 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Struzball said:


> I would imagine it would be in the companies best interests to buy back all the shares.  The shares are worthless anyway, and they'll never be able to get the millions of dollars off the small time investors, so I can't see they'd be any worse off.
> 
> Why can't they do that? Would there be any problem for the company if they were to do that? (besides the initial cost in buying all the shares @ 0.001)




Yes, they'd lose out on their underwriting agreement, costing them billions.

Even assuming this wasn't the case, from what I understand the majority of share holders owe hundreds of thousands, not millions of dollars. If someone owed you say, $1m, and you knew you could only get $200,000 out of them, would you just forgive the debt and say "Not worth it, since I can't get the lot"? or would you get what you can and write off the rest?

The other possibility is that they sell the debt at 10c to the dollar to a debt collector, and it's the debt collector's problem to make a profit out of it.


----------



## Calliope (15 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> The other possibility is that they sell the debt at 10c to the dollar to a debt collector, and it's the debt collector's problem to make a profit out of it.




That's a real possibility. Big companies that know they have no chance of recovering debts sell the debt off at a big discount to the debt collectors. The phone companies do this all the time with the huge mobile phone bills that naive kids rack up.


----------



## mikeyfinn111 (15 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Yes, they'd lose out on their underwriting agreement, costing them billions.
> 
> Even assuming this wasn't the case, from what I understand the majority of share holders owe hundreds of thousands, not millions of dollars. If someone owed you say, $1m, and you knew you could only get $200,000 out of them, would you just forgive the debt and say "Not worth it, since I can't get the lot"? or would you get what you can and write off the rest?
> 
> The other possibility is that they sell the debt at 10c to the dollar to a debt collector, and it's the debt collector's problem to make a profit out of it.




If they were to pursue only the people with a million debt or less, the cost of legal fees, accounting fees etc to take all these people to court would exceed what they would get in return, making them even more out of pocket then they already would be. And remember this is mostly mummys and Daddys or young people like myself that have been caught up in this, they can take us to court, but theyll just be making us bankrupt with very little to offer in assets. I owe $650,000 and all ive got is a Beaten up VN Commodore with a blown head. they can take it if it makes them feel better. If MACQ had any business acumen which I imagine they do, they would be aware that this is not a solution.


----------



## GumbyLearner (15 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

"Liquidity" is a straw man


----------



## GumbyLearner (15 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Yes, they'd lose out on their underwriting agreement, costing them billions.
> 
> Even assuming this wasn't the case, from what I understand the majority of share holders owe hundreds of thousands, not millions of dollars. If someone owed you say, $1m, and you knew you could only get $200,000 out of them, would you just forgive the debt and say "Not worth it, since I can't get the lot"? or would you get what you can and write off the rest?
> 
> The other possibility is that they sell the debt at 10c to the dollar to a debt collector, and it's the debt collector's problem to make a profit out of it.




From my own personal limited knowledge of this situation, not having all the facts.  I think it could go either way. Plenty of lawyers must be loving this, no matter who finds judgement in their favour. Does seem like a novel scenario though. JMO 

DYOR


----------



## GumbyLearner (16 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I was in cafe last year and a guy from Macquaire Bank told me,.. "Well Macquarie really know what 
is going on YOU should invest in us!" 

All I could say is thanks, we KNOW YOU KNOW it all..BUT NOW most people realize that their company is worth almost a quarter of when you suggested so go and get ******.

Anyway. I invested in non-retail stocks and have no exposure to financials.
Including Macqaurie and the dodge merchant who told me so!

Thanks Macquarie bank but your garbage employee, customer service, peerage, usual we care more about you because our fund manager/graduate sponsored program is trying to achieve results.

Work on it yourself, you ungrateful doyens of nothingness.

Get a life weaklings!


In good faith
Steve


----------



## Sunder (16 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



mikeyfinn111 said:


> If they were to pursue only the people with a million debt or less, the cost of legal fees, accounting fees etc to take all these people to court would exceed what they would get in return, making them even more out of pocket then they already would be. And remember this is mostly mummys and Daddys or young people like myself that have been caught up in this, they can take us to court, but theyll just be making us bankrupt with very little to offer in assets. I owe $650,000 and all ive got is a Beaten up VN Commodore with a blown head. they can take it if it makes them feel better. If MACQ had any business acumen which I imagine they do, they would be aware that this is not a solution.




Isn't the average person worth 250k or something like that? I suspect share traders would be above the average net worth. 

As for fees, how much could it cost to hire a lawyer for a couple weeks, to send out the preliminary paper work to get it to court (In form letter - basically pay the lawyer 5 units to write the letter, then the remainder of the two weeks to ensure that the letter is applicable in each case), hopefully get some offers of settlement, then decide which are the big fish worth frying for 2 hours in court? Even a QC at $1000 an hour, is only going to cost $2000 per case, when they've narrowed it down to the clients worth suing. 

Commercial litigation is not like a criminal trial and is settled very quickly, where a debt is easily proven. 

I'm still putting the money on selling debt though, with the price of debt negotiated by the size of outstanding. A $650,000 debt might get sold for $100k, where as a $65 Million debt might still get sold for 100k, unless the debt collector found out the debtor has above or below average assets. 

A friend of mine lives with a debt collector. They're ruthless. The statute of limitations says you can't collect on a debt more than 7 years old unless an additional financial transaction has occured in the interim. So what they do, is 2 months before the statute expires, they go in hard, knowing they're not going to get anything. They play "Bad cop", essentially. Then two weeks before it expires, they send a "good cop" in, saying if the debtor would pay just $1 into the account, they'll get off their back for another year, and then renegotiate a payment plan then. That $1 gives the debt collectors another 7 years at it.

So if you think you can get away with not paying the debt because you have nothing now, they may try to collect in 6.9 years, say, after you get an inheritance, or got a good job, or... whatever. 

This is why you always treat any kind of debt with extreme caution, and never agree to any kind of debt renegotiation plan without advice of a damn good lawyer.


----------



## prawn_86 (16 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> The statute of limitations says you can't collect on a debt more than 7 years old unless an additional financial transaction has occured in the interim. So what they do, is 2 months before the statute expires, they go in hard, knowing they're not going to get anything.




I didnt know this. Someone i know is being pursued by debt collectors over a mutual car accident (was a rental car company involved also) so i'll be sure to let them know about the 7 year thing


----------



## Sunder (16 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



prawn_86 said:


> I didnt know this. Someone i know is being pursued by debt collectors over a mutual car accident (was a rental car company involved also) so i'll be sure to let them know about the 7 year thing




Could be 6 years, actually:



> The right to pursue the debt in court has expired due to the passage of time.
> 
> This time limit varies from state to state, but is usually six years from the date the debt was last acknowledged by the debtor (e.g. by making a payment).




http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/Draft_ACCC-ASIC_debt_collection_guideline.pdf/$file/Draft_ACCC-ASIC_debt_collection_guideline.pdf

Trying to find the actual legislation, but as I'm at work at the moment, can't really spend too long at it.

Definitely let anyone you know who is having trouble with Debt collectors about the dirty tricks they play. No matter how they got into the debt, debt collectors should not be using deceit and breaking the law in trying to collect.


----------



## thermalmonster (16 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Welcome to the not so Happy Party.
The group is gathering members from different sources also.
Im sorry to hear you guys have also been caught up in this.
You have probably read through the posts and got the general jist of things.

I think to start with a few people on this forum accused us of being a little foolish to have invested in these shares without doing the "obvious research " that perhaps Experienced Investors would have carried out.

However due to the number of people who have fallen into this trap it is becoming increasingly apparent that insufficent and contradicting information has resulted in this situation.
It is blatently obvious to most that some form of PPE should have been issued to protect Jo public from this exposure.

ANYONE ELSE CAUGHT UP IN THIS SHOULD PM ME  WITH THEIR CONTACT DETAILS


----------



## thermalmonster (16 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Debt collection companies will only buy up debts that have a sound foundation.
That is where a Liability is proven by way of a credit agreement or similar.
For instance a car loan or personal loan or phone bill. There is no grey area that sudgests that you dont owe the money.

This is much different. 

My brother once got hounded by such a company over a defaulted car loan. The company had sold the debt and they wanted to bankrupt him.
A lawyer acting on his behalf came up with somthing to do with the GAP insurance and Bla bla bla.

My point being, as soon as there was a slight bit of doubt in the case that they would not be succesful in getting the money, they pulled the pin

Cant imagine a debt collection company wanting to touch this with a barge pole.


----------



## sails (16 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Isn't the average person worth 250k or something like that? I suspect share traders would be above the average net worth...




May be the average, I don't know.  But the extremely low share price naturally attracts those with small trading accounts and also more likely to be well below your net worth average.  If they were experienced share traders, they probably wouldn't be in this mess.


----------



## shaunQ (18 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hey does anyone know with an off-market transfer whether you still need to be over the $500 minimum ASX purchase amount. Like others have said on here, I would be interested in buying some but not 500,000...


----------



## itsonlymoney (18 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I have read with interest in various newspapers and internet sites about the shareholders who face financial ruin due to this debacle.I am interested in aquiring these shares before the due date.....the proviso being that shareholders sign over the shares to me in a face to face setting.This is absolutely in no way a hoax or misleading....I know exactly what I am doing.


----------



## drsmith (18 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



shaunQ said:


> Hey does anyone know with an off-market transfer whether you still need to be over the $500 minimum ASX purchase amount. Like others have said on here, I would be interested in buying some but not 500,000...



Why?


----------



## shaunQ (19 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



drsmith said:


> Why?



 Why not? You never know, it could actually be worth something after April...  Wouldn't want many obviously...


----------



## shaunQ (19 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



itsonlymoney said:


> I have read with interest in various newspapers and internet sites about the shareholders who face financial ruin due to this debacle.I am interested in aquiring these shares before the due date.....the proviso being that shareholders sign over the shares to me in a face to face setting.This is absolutely in no way a hoax or misleading....I know exactly what I am doing.




Since no-one has jumped on this... can you elaborate? Obviously it would be a sensitive topic for those affected and since this is your first post I think it would be good to detail your intentions. Are you looking for payment? Whats the deal? As you would know there have been different options, schemes, or scams mentioned previously in this thread -so we aren't stupid. Be upfront and you may get a response...


----------



## drsmith (19 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



shaunQ said:


> Why not? You never know, it could actually be worth something after April...  Wouldn't want many obviously...



When the starting point is so far in the red ($0.70 per unit as estimated by Macquarie), no one wants many. That's why there's no buyers.


----------



## shaunQ (19 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



drsmith said:


> When the starting point is so far in the red ($0.70 per unit as estimated by Macquarie), no one wants many. That's why there's no buyers.




Their estimate could be wrong. I agree its an absolute gamble, and couldn't afford much, but allowing a lower trade level could at least provide some liquidity. The minimum buy in of $1M is pretty steep.

It wouldn't surprise me to see the price above $2 after both the installments are paid, as much as it wouldn't surprise me to see it completely fold. 

The sick irony of Mac Bank buying them all up in the end, bankrupting everyone and making a fortune out of it.

So the question stands, is there a minimum for off-market trades (ie. lower than $500). And do these trades have a transaction cost?


----------



## drsmith (19 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



shaunQ said:


> Their estimate could be wrong.



It could. There still might be no buyers after payment of the second instalment.

If you wanted to have a punt on this a better time would be after payment of the second instalment (assuming you're not the only one bidding at the time).


----------



## Enzyme (20 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

From The Courier Mail:



> "This stock is not trading purely because of the liability associated with it," one Brisbane stockbroker said yesterday. "People also don't know what it is worth. After the $1 instalment is paid what will it trade at, 50c, 40c? It certainly will not be trading at $1.


----------



## sails (20 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



shaunQ said:


> ...So the question stands, is there a minimum for off-market trades (ie. lower than $500). And do these trades have a transaction cost?




In the absence of anyone else knowing or replying, I had a look on the ASx site and it's difficult to find any info.  Here is a link to an article I found by Patricia Harrison which makes mention of it:  http://www.asx.com.au/resources/newsletters/investor_update/20040511_Broker_article_IE3.htm.  Here's an excerpt:



> The first thing most people ask is: how much money do I need before I can start buying shares? The share registries which manage the registers on behalf of companies will allow a minimum parcel of $500 worth of shares, however as most brokers charge a minimum brokerage on each trade it is really not cost effective to buy such a small parcel and I usually recommend that $5,000 would be a more appropriate amount.




I don't think she had in mind a $0.001 share price with a future $2 debt when suggesting $5,000.  

Anyway, back to the point.  She says it's the share registries that allow a minimum of $500.  I did a search on Link Market Services website (bcsca registry) and could find nothing on minimum share parcels.  It seems like Commsec enforce the $500, but perhaps that is their own rule.

I guess you could give Link a call to find out what size you can do by market transfer especially as there is future debt to be considered on this share. If the future debt of $2 was added on to the current share price you could do as little as 250 shares to make up the $500.

And, what happens when people want to give their shares away.  Seems a very strange rule if it exists...


----------



## Bushie (20 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hi, I just rang Netwealth online trading to ask, and they confirmed for me that there is no minimum parcel for non-market (off market) transfers. However it will cost $55-00 to do the brokerage transfer. Therefore if you want 100 or 1000 or 250 or whatever, they can be transferred to you off market. I just happen to have a few hundred thousand laying around the house, if anyone feels the need to contact me, please pm me.


----------



## cuttlefish (20 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Well its quite interesting that despite opinions to the contrary there are some people that seem willing to take a punt with a $1000 or $2000  (INCLUDING INSTALMENT PAYMENTS) on these (i.e. a parcel of 500 or 1000 shares - face value $5 or $10 without instalment payments factored in).   Maybe the ASX and/or the brokers should review the $500 minimum parcel restriction to reflect the fact that they are actually trading at $2.01 when the two remaining instalments are considered into it - and thus a $5 or $10 order is really a $1000 or $2000 order if instalment liabilities are included.

If they did its possible a market may reappear for the stock at the .001c share price (I doubt it would be large enough to consume all of the stock overhang but who knows - it would at least create a market again).


----------



## thermalmonster (20 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Yes

If you bought or got Given $0.5  worth (500 shares) Paid the Liability in April ($500) therefore total investment $500.5

I reckon you could probably get 10 x that once this is sorted out.
If this was promoted it would have the potential to create sales.

Now people know the Liability a 50 cent investment could be worthwhile.......

or may be not?


----------



## shaunQ (20 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Thats what I'm saying, the fact that its effectively a $1M minimum buy in means no-one can take a punt and its liquidity is frozen.


----------



## thermalmonster (20 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

BrisCon CEO Raymond Wilson attributed the lack of trade to the fact that people had become aware of the two $1 instalments.

What a tool  !!!!!!!!!!.  Admitting that the only reason it traded before was the fact nobody knew about the next two installments.


----------



## sails (20 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



shaunQ said:


> Thats what I'm saying, the fact that its effectively a $1M minimum buy in means no-one can take a punt and its liquidity is frozen.




Shaun, have quoted Bushie's post below. It apparently can be done without the $500 minimum with an off market transfer. 



Bushie said:


> Hi, I just rang Netwealth online trading to ask, and they confirmed for me that there is no minimum parcel for non-market (off market) transfers. However it will cost $55-00 to do the brokerage transfer. Therefore if you want 100 or 1000 or 250 or whatever, they can be transferred to you off market. I just happen to have a few hundred thousand laying around the house, if anyone feels the need to contact me, please pm me.


----------



## thermalmonster (20 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Im not sure if all on line Brokers have a minimum transaction fee?

If anyone wants 50c worth Im sure there are plenty of us willing to sell a few.


----------



## drsmith (20 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

If someone wishes to purchase these now but for a given liability when the next instalment is due all they have to do is divide $500 by the amount of shares they want and bid that price. 

For example if an investor wanted 10000 shares they could achieve this by bidding $500/10000 or $0.05 per share for the 10000 shares.

An investor doing this at the present time might even get a brief moment of fame (ridicule) as such a purchase could well attract comment from journalists following this saga.

One thing's for sure, the seller wouldn't complain.


----------



## thermalmonster (20 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

risCon CEO Raymond Wilson attributed the lack of trade to the fact that people had become aware of the two $1 instalments.

What a tool.  Admitting that the only reason it traded before was the fact nobody knew about the next two installments.


Its so funny I have posted it Twice!!


----------



## cuttlefish (20 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> and thus a $5 or $10 order is really a $1000 or $2000 order if instalment liabilities are included.




Apologies for my poor maths (the mind boggles at the extent of the liability though).  A $5 order at .1c would result in a $10,000 liability and a $10 order a $20,000 liability.  (when both instalments are factored in).


----------



## shaunQ (20 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> Apologies for my poor maths (the mind boggles at the extent of the liability though).  A $5 order at .1c would result in a $10,000 liability and a $10 order a $20,000 liability.  (when both instalments are factored in).




Exactly. So the minimum buy in level should be 25c worth... giving you a total $500 liability, which would give you 250 shares at current market rates. + possible potential long term brokerage.

(Just speculating here guys)


----------



## corr (20 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Bushie said:


> Hi, I just rang Netwealth online trading to ask, and they confirmed for me that there is no minimum parcel for non-market (off market) transfers. However it will cost $55-00 to do the brokerage transfer. Therefore if you want 100 or 1000 or 250 or whatever, they can be transferred to you off market. I just happen to have a few hundred thousand laying around the house, if anyone feels the need to contact me, please pm me.




BTW Issuer sponsored to issuer sponsored offmarket transfers are free - but don't know if there is a minimum parcel. The forms are available from the issurers website.


----------



## Big_Daz (21 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Off - market transfer form can be found here.

http://www.sraa.com.au/forms/form23.pdf

I have done a number of these before for other companies and clients of my work and haven't had a problem with them. Ie: No minimum.


----------



## itsonlymoney (21 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



shaunQ said:


> Since no-one has jumped on this... can you elaborate? Obviously it would be a sensitive topic for those affected and since this is your first post I think it would be good to detail your intentions. Are you looking for payment? Whats the deal? As you would know there have been different options, schemes, or scams mentioned previously in this thread -so we aren't stupid. Be upfront and you may get a response...




I am seeking payment, but it is only a fraction of what Brisconnections will want come April. For a small fee, I am willing to help take your shares and worry away. My offer is open till the end of feb. If you want more info, message me. time wasters need not apply. You either want my help or not.


----------



## drsmith (21 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



itsonlymoney said:


> I am seeking payment, but it is only a fraction of what Brisconnections will want come April. For a small fee, I am willing to help take your shares and worry away. My offer is open till the end of feb. If you want more info, message me. time wasters need not apply. You either want my help or not.



What are you hoping to gain from this ?


----------



## itsonlymoney (21 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



drsmith said:


> What are you hoping to gain from this ?




A warm fuzzy feeling knowing I could help a lot of desperate people.


----------



## Julia (21 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



itsonlymoney said:


> A warm fuzzy feeling knowing I could help a lot of desperate people.



If you plan to help a 'lot of desperate people' you must be feeling prepared to stump up a fairly substantial sum in the next instalment.   Why?
Just a Good Samaritan?   and if so, why?


----------



## shaunQ (21 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



itsonlymoney said:


> I am seeking payment, but it is only a fraction of what Brisconnections will want come April. For a small fee, I am willing to help take your shares and worry away. My offer is open till the end of feb. If you want more info, message me. time wasters need not apply. You either want my help or not.




Well good luck. You will have 2 months. Personally I don't see anything wrong with asking for money if you were to take a lot of them on board - others may, but you'll need it. 24% of the company is available out there somewhere.


----------



## shaunQ (21 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Actually - does anyone know when you become a 'major' shareholder, and disclosed to the market...? (Something to look out for itsonlymoney)


----------



## drsmith (21 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



itsonlymoney said:


> A warm fuzzy feeling knowing I could help a lot of desperate people.



You could get that by bidding $0.001 on the market.


----------



## adman0001 (21 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

major shareholder as far as i know is 51% or to be more precise is 50.1% but they then have a controlling say. And thx Julie for your pm, it's all good. Been slack replying to you.


----------



## cuttlefish (21 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

As I understand it, disclosure rules require shareholders to give notice when their shareholding exceeds 5%.   Foreign shareholders need to seek FIRB approval before going above 15% and takeover rules apply for 20% or above (unless the 3% creep rule is applied which allows a shareholding to be increased by 3% per annum without mandatory takeover applying).  My info could be wrong or out of date.


----------



## Absolutely (22 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Well, maybe it's a case of get as many of the shares as possible, for a fee per share from those desperate to be rid of them. Accummulate a big pile of cash and move to South America - "disappear" so to speak ????


----------



## prawn_86 (22 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

My bet is its someone associated with Mac Bank. Works like this:

Mac BAnk gets paid to take the BCSCA that they have already sold down. This way they have less of a liability if they are forced to cover a lot as the underwriters. Or if all goes to (their) plan they will obtain a vast amount and be able to pull the plug on the project on some legal loophole, meaning they have then made a profit from "buying" these shares...


----------



## drsmith (22 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Is it worth the effort though for Mac Bank to aquire the shares in this way ?

If, say for example they got $5000 from someone holding 500,000 shares that's $0.01 per share. Some hold much bigger parcels so a few thousand dollars is going to equate to even less per share.

Wouldn't it be easier for Mac to buy them on the market for $0.001 than waste time with this sort of amateur nonsense.


----------



## Macquack (22 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



prawn_86 said:


> My bet is its someone associated with Mac Bank. Works like this:
> 
> Mac BAnk gets paid to take the BCSCA that they have already sold down. This way they have less of a liability if they are forced to cover a lot as the underwriters. Or if all goes to (their) plan they will obtain a vast amount and be able to pull the plug on the project on some legal loophole, meaning they have then *made a profit *from "buying" these shares...




One thing is for certain, Macquarie Group has made a profit on the floating of this shipwreck. About a $100 million profit! 

It was obviously easier for the grubs at MacGrab to float Brisconnections than it is to ACTUALLY BUILD THE BLOODY ROAD.


----------



## moXJO (22 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

If you set up a company and off loaded the shares to it. Then when the installment is due bankrupt the company would you still be personally liable?
Even better if the company went bankrupt with debt owing to the tax department or bank would they seize your shares as assets


----------



## maffu (22 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I feel so sorry for the shareholders stung by this anomaly 

How many shares are outstanding? With Mac Bank as underwriters, are they in a position to come up with the 800-900million cash? Surely with the financial crisis and all the jobs they are cutting a nearly 1 billion dollar cash outflow could cause plenty of damage to them? Will that turn out to be the biggest news of the scenario?


----------



## Julia (23 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Macquack said:


> One thing is for certain, Macquarie Group has made a profit on the floating of this shipwreck. About a $100 million profit!




Could you explain how you came to this conclusion?


----------



## Macquack (23 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> Could you explain how you came to this conclusion?




smh.com.au
Business Day
*Disconnections in Brisbane*
Michael West July 5, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24086196-5012439,00.html



> You've got to hand it to Macquarie. MIG, MAP and MCG are dancing on their lows, RiverCity Motorway - the other Brisbane toll road - is wallowing at one-third of its issue price and* the macramÃ© magicians bob along and blithely rip out $110 million in fees upfront *- six years before there is sufficient toll revenue to fund a distribution for investors from cashflow. Le plus ca change.




I generously allowed $10 million for "Printing and Stationery", leaving the McHouse of Cards with a $100 million dollar upfront profit.


----------



## maffu (24 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Macquack said:


> I generously allowed $10 million for "Printing and Stationery", leaving the McHouse of Cards with a $100 million dollar upfront profit.





Wont they stand to lose about $700 million as the underwriters assuming the majority of the retail shareholders can not pay the installment?


----------



## Julia (24 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



maffu said:


> Wont they stand to lose about $700 million as the underwriters assuming the majority of the retail shareholders can not pay the installment?




I'd have thought so too.


----------



## Enzyme (25 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I think there is roughly $800 million due in the two installments.

Assuming that the underwriters had to cover all of that, then the liability on the underwriters will be:

Maquarie: $336 million
Deutsche Bank:  $336 million
Credir Suisse: $66 million
JP Morgan: $66 million.

(Maquarie and Deutsche underwrite 41.7% each, while Credit Suisse and JP Morgan cover 8.3% each)


----------



## Enzyme (25 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Quote from the Courier Mail:



> Labor M P's share fee on airport link contract
> 
> 
> TWO influential Labor figures shared a "success fee" after their consulting effort helped a consortium win the Government Airport link contract.
> ...


----------



## Macquack (25 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



maffu said:


> Wont they stand to lose about $700 million as the underwriters assuming the majority of the retail shareholders can not pay the installment?






Enzyme said:


> I think there is roughly $800 million due in the two installments.
> 
> Assuming that the underwriters had to cover all of that, then the liability on the underwriters will be:
> 
> ...




It is not a complete loss for Macquarie. Covering any defaulting shares results in Macquarie taking ownership of those shares (for what thats worth!).

Macquarie did float this company and push the great value of this project.


----------



## Macquack (25 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Former politicians Terry Mackenroth and Con Sciacca pocketed a huge windfall, believed to be about $500,000, after the BrisConnections consortium won the tunnel tender.




They should have reimbursed these crooks with shares in Brisconnections (first installment only).

That would leave them with $500 and a $1 million liability, a reasonable "success fee" for their stellar efforts.


----------



## Enzyme (25 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Macquack said:


> They should have reimbursed these crooks with shares in Brisconnections (first installment only).
> 
> That would leave them with $500 and a $1 million liability, a reasonable "success fee" for their stellar efforts.




The be fair to these guys, as far as I can tell neither had held any public office for several years.  As private citizens they are as entitled to be employed by and work towards the success of the Brisconnections bid as anyone else.

If their involvement casts a shadow over anyone, it is the over the current serving ministers and/or members of parliament involved in the tender process.  Presumably the reason ex-Queensland politicians were hired and paid big success bonuses for winning a tender with the Queensland government was their links with that government and supposed ability to influence the decision, or at least influence the process.  

Whoever paid these guys a combind $1 million success bonus thought they could influence the process.  Did they?


----------



## NiMaC (26 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> The be fair to these guys, as far as I can tell neither had held any public office for several years.  As private citizens they are as entitled to be employed by and work towards the success of the Brisconnections bid as anyone else.
> 
> If their involvement casts a shadow over anyone, it is the over the current serving ministers and/or members of parliament involved in the tender process.  Presumably the reason ex-Queensland politicians were hired and paid big success bonuses for winning a tender with the Queensland government was their links with that government and supposed ability to influence the decision, or at least influence the process.
> 
> Whoever paid these guys a combind $1 million success bonus thought they could influence the process.  Did they?



Mabey they took lessons off Brian Burke!


----------



## Sunder (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Dondi said:


> *Admin note:* Quoted post removed at author's request




Sounds shifty if you won't post details on a public forum...

Most avenues have been explored here, and most are either impractical or illegal. I'm now curious as to why you are hesitant to post, and use an anonymous email address.


----------



## sails (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Sounds shifty if you won't post details on a public forum...




LOL ... Just because they may be working quietly on a solution doesn't necessarily imply it's shifty...  

Why worry Sunder? -  if it's shifty, it probably won't work anyway ...


----------



## Sunder (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> LOL ... Just because they may be working quietly on a solution doesn't necessarily imply it's shifty...
> 
> Why worry Sunder? -  if it's shifty, it probably won't work anyway ...




Not worried, curious. 

And if it is shifty, wouldn't we as a forum be better off doing the respondants a service by warning them ahead of time, rather than letting them get busted, and face legal action on top of their existing problems?


----------



## sails (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Not worried, curious.
> 
> And if it is shifty, wouldn't we as a forum be better off doing the respondants a service by warning them ahead of time, rather than letting them get busted, and face legal action on top of their existing problems?




If this was a lawyer's forum, may be so - but even then they would more than likely be given differing advice.  But the views of faceless people with funny nicks from all sorts of backgrounds may not actually help them in legal terms.

I don't hold any of these shares, so I'm not privy to their discussions and have no need to be.  I sincerely hope they can find a legit way to sort this mess out.  I hope they are getting good advice.

LOL, now I'm curious why you are so curious.    Unless this affects you in some way, why would you be so curious to know the details?


----------



## Sunder (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> LOL, now I'm curious why you are so curious.    Unless this affects you in some way, why would you be so curious to know the details?




Maybe it's that childish "I know something you don't know!" attitude!  Nah. 

I'm not going to lay awake at night wondering, but I am finding it very interesting the different schemes people have come up with, all with a degree of immorality or illegality, and now someone thinks they have a workable solution, I'm just curious what it is.


----------



## sails (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Maybe it's that childish "I know something you don't know!" attitude!  Nah.
> 
> I'm not going to lay awake at night wondering, but I am finding it very interesting the different schemes people have come up with, all with a degree of immorality or illegality, and now someone thinks they have a workable solution, I'm just curious what it is.




I guess all will be revealed in it's due course.  It will be interesting to see how it all pans out...


----------



## shaunQ (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> but I am finding it very interesting the different schemes people have come up with, all with a degree of immorality or illegality




So Macquarie Bank sells them openly on the market to unsuspecting small-time investors... thats ok.. but if they now try and pass the buck... its immoral? No its not. Its survival. Doing what you need to do to protect yourself or your family is not and can never be immoral, because the principal is just.

Its like stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family. Buyer Beware is there for a reason - no one should feel hesitant or guilty for passing these shares on if they can.


----------



## Julia (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



shaunQ said:


> Its survival. Doing what you need to do to protect yourself or your family is not and can never be immoral, because the principal is just.



I find that an unreasonably broad statement, and essentially disagree.


----------



## thermalmonster (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I dont blame anyone for not wishing to announce their private affairs on the Forum.
They have done so in the past and got ridiculed for it.

Yes some of the Ideas that have been tossed around the place May seem a little immoral to those who preach from the high ground. However if I had 5 million of debt to inflict on my family I would certainly be considering the options.


----------



## shaunQ (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> I find that an unreasonably broad statement, and essentially disagree.




As is your right! But to clarify, If someone was to buy these shares, with the deliberate intention of ripping someone else off and profiting from it... um, possibly like Mac Bank did, then it would be immoral. 

However if you have been caught, or swindled yourself into this, and it comes down to protecting your family - I think its very harsh, for people not effected, to be commenting on what is, and isn't "moral". 

I completely agree that suggestions like, find a drunk, etc (not my suggestion!) are awful, but I think the intention was for it to be done with the person fully aware. So if a person is willing, surely its essentially a win-win situation and really its the heart of capitalism?

People say the market is about finding someone more stupid than you? So, thats not immoral??


----------



## Sunder (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



shaunQ said:


> So Macquarie Bank sells them openly on the market to unsuspecting small-time investors... thats ok.. but if they now try and pass the buck... its immoral? No its not. Its survival. Doing what you need to do to protect yourself or your family is not and can never be immoral, because the principal is just.
> 
> Its like stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family. Buyer Beware is there for a reason - no one should feel hesitant or guilty for passing these shares on if they can.




By your reasoning, someone who didn't realise smoking was bad for their lungs, or drinking was bad for their liver, should feel free to kidnap a suitable donor and steal their organs? After all, it's you and your family you're protecting, who cares about the victim? They shouldn't have been walking around late at night hey?

If you can find someone foolish enough to take the shares with no intentional deceit, go ahead. That's fine. At the very least you're on par with Macquarie Bank, but I think quite a bit worse. At least Macquarie sold them with full disclosure on an open market, while they still had value. (Meaning the buyers were not buying into massive debt)

But to fool someone intentionally into taking them, or to use loopholes in the law to quasi-legally offload your obligation, is not comparable with a company that performed an IPO meeting every legal and moral obligation. It just doesn't compare.

Edit: Let me ask you a question. You seem to be affected. How would you feel if the person who sold it to you, knew full well that you were buying into $1m or whatever of debt. You'd feel... pretty much like you feel now, right? Yet you want to push that off onto someone else - by intentional deceit, rather than just letting ignorance let people make mistakes??


----------



## thermalmonster (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I think your missing the point some what sunder


----------



## Sunder (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> I think your missing the point some what sunder




I could be, or those suffering could be missing the point. We've blurred lines in this discussion between "I'd break any law and do anything immoral to get rid of these shares" and "I got suckered, if I can sucker someone else legally, I will".

It appears to me Shaun is closer to the first camp than the second. He fails to see the irony that he thinks Macquarie, who has done everything legally, and arguably morally, as a reprehensible entity, yet seems to believe it's fully justified to break the law and act deceptively and immorally, because it's him that will be impacted?

Does nobody else see the irony?


----------



## shaunQ (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> I think your missing the point some what sunder




Somewhat!...  And no I'm not involved Sunder.


----------



## shaunQ (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> I could be, or those suffering could be missing the point. We've blurred lines in this discussion between "I'd break any law and do anything immoral to get rid of these shares" and "I got suckered, if I can sucker someone else legally, I will".




Look I'm just defending the right for people to trade these if they choose, however the choose. Please don't put quotes around things like "I'd break any law" implying that someone has said anything of the sort.

I clearly said that all people would need to be properly informed. And if so, what else do you want? Simply trading is in effect suckering someone else more legal. Have you ever bought heap of shares, for them to go down, so after a while you sell them and they continue to go down? Then you just suckered someone mate. With a click of a mouse in your ivory tower someone somewhere lost money from your transaction.


----------



## thermalmonster (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

No one I have spoken to regarding the sale/ purchase of shares would be prepared to sell, donate, inflict, gift, leave in a will or estate,trade or Auction these bloody things without first disclosing the full impact of their actions and its consequence.
Something most of us retail investors have not had the privilage of.

FACT!

There is always in western capitalism someone prepared to make a living out of someone elses miss-fortune  or situation.

This may be a bank offering to lend a person with a poor credit history a very high interest Home Loan or A Pawn broker buying the Family air loom for a song.
Supply & Demand.

I expect sunder that there are folk out there with much more business acumen than you or I who have the foresight to make a few quid out of this predicament quite legaly with no hesitation, regret or misconception.

Good luck to them & good luck to anyone who may have found a legit way out.

Dont come on here spouting morals, wrongs and rights. Desperate people will do desperate things. Check out the people or companies that put them in that situation.
Do not sit and judge on pure speculation


----------



## thermalmonster (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

ShaunQ

I think our Mr Sunder just Trolls around for debate.
take no Notice


----------



## joeyjoejoe (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

i hope that for every1 on here you get out of this nightmare havent learnt your lesson and not have to lose a cent more than you orginally outlayed for the shares..

id like to see some1 buy up all the shares who is for example.... at the end of their life, no money/assets or family and is happy to give this great gift to so many people before they go....

and for example buy all the shares on market...

i know my broker comsec i had direct debit. ive never a problem putting through transactions of any amount.. nobody checks my bank account to make sure the money is in there.. if they are purchased and the person is no longer with us.. what happends there..

or someting similar.. or maybe we could have two people

1) the fall guy (hero)
2) rich saviour to fund the purchase by donating $100,000

and or some mixture of the two.. or all the brisconnect shareholders pooling together 100k to fund the purchase by one individual who will willingly and knowingly purchase them all


----------



## thermalmonster (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

For Anyone Still Trapped by the BCSCA Fiasco Please PM me.

" We dont sell shares to Park Benchers"

In all seriousness If you have a share Problem & no one else can save you then you should PM the A team

We have a possible solution.

Sleep easy


----------



## brty (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Sunder,

Can you name one other thing that it is possible to spend $500 on, and inherit a $1,000,000 debt, and by only clicking a mouse 3 or 4 times in the process (in other words something that my 4 year old could land me into if I left the computer and went to the dunny).

Just one thing anywhere in the world.

You can't do it selling options (you have to put up margin), nor commodities (margin again). You can't do it in realestate as you need to sign, and then often there is a cooling off period.

One thing Maquarie has not done here is maintain a market for the issue. They created this debacle and are not supporting it, meaning to me that they knew they sold a pup. That is morally wrong and possibly legally wrong. Time and court action is where this is heading.

brty


----------



## thermalmonster (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hey Joey

Are you sudgesting that someone you know is on their death bed with a comsec account?

Just make sure you are not the first benificary if they press the buy button.

Oh and for christ sake dont tell Sunder


----------



## Sunder (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



shaunQ said:


> Look I'm just defending the right for people to trade these if they choose, however the choose. Please don't put quotes around things like "I'd break any law" implying that someone has said anything of the sort.




So tell us where you really stand.

I've told you where I stand. Do it legally - full disclosure off market, or a normal on market transaction.

You've told us where you stand to a degree: Transfering to a willing drunk is a conspiracy to defraud - a judge can likely reverse that transaction ruling it solely for the purpose of avoiding liability, and an fraudulent action. Although I can't guarantee that - nobody can until a judge forms a precedent - I have seen MANY cases where a judge has reversed a fully legal CIVIL transaction, ruling that it was only for fraudulent (criminal) purposes. 

You see it time after time - A husband selling a $10 million dollar property to his wife for $1, just weeks before the administrators come in. Judge allows administrators access to it. A company is created solely for the purpose of racking up debt, and then paying out the proprietor. Judge allows creditors to sue the proprietor for the full amount. I strongly suspect this "legal but awful" transaction of selling to willing drunks, is actually going to be ruled illegal if it ever came to court. 

So already, you've been endorsing what will most likely be ruled an illegal transaction. So... Where do you really stand? Is it ignorance of the law, or are you really actively accepting criminal fraud as "amoral" because it's your family at stake?

Back to the topic at hand, this is why I was so curious about what Dondi had in mind - so many of these "legal" transactions, are legal within the context of civil transactions, but in the context of criminal law, is fraudulent and illegal.


----------



## Sunder (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



brty said:


> Sunder,
> 
> Can you name one other thing that it is possible to spend $500 on, and inherit a $1,000,000 debt, and by only clicking a mouse 3 or 4 times in the process (in other words something that my 4 year old could land me into if I left the computer and went to the dunny).
> 
> One thing Maquarie has not done here is maintain a market for the issue. They created this debacle and are not supporting it, meaning to me that they knew they sold a pup. That is morally wrong and possibly legally wrong. Time and court action is where this is heading.




There are two separate issues here:

1. Did the broker/vendor adequately advertise the liability. That issue has not been raised for quite a few pages. Let's not raise it again.

2. Is it moral to either offload the debt to someone else who is unaware of it, or else offload it to the underwriters through "legal trickery" which is likely to classified as fraud?

The only issue discussed in the last couple of pages is 2. 

I strongly do not believe that even full admission of liability in 1, justifies a person acting immorally or illegally in 2.


----------



## Julia (27 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> At least Macquarie sold them with full disclosure on an open market, while they still had value. (Meaning the buyers were not buying into massive debt)



Two points here:
  1.  yes Macquarie or BCSCA did go to the market with full disclosure.  That people failed to access that disclosure cannot be blamed on Macquarie.  
  2.  Actually, Sunder, your statement in brackets is essentially the crux of this whole subject, in that the buyers WERE buying into massive debt.
Point 1. above made this clear in that there were two further installments making up the stapled security.




> But to fool someone intentionally into taking them, or to use loopholes in the law to quasi-legally offload your obligation, is not comparable with a company that performed an IPO meeting every legal and moral obligation. It just doesn't compare.



Agree absolutely.





thermalmonster said:


> I think your missing the point some what sunder



No, I don't think Sunder is missing the point at all.  You are choosing not to see the point he is making.





shaunQ said:


> I clearly said that all people would need to be properly informed. And if so, what else do you want?



Shaun, have you read through this whole thread?
We have already had this debate ad infinitum.

Clearly there is no market for sale of these shares.  
Therefore the only likely buyer will be someone who does not in fact fully appreciate the repercussions of either buying the shares or accepting them as a gift.
There have been suggestions of donating the shares to eg a homeless person.
I have previously objected to this as I don't believe any person who is homeless is in charge of his/her life and therefore can't reasonably be expected to make objective decisions.

If you wave $1000 in front of an addict all they will see is their next fix.
They won't even hear you tell them about the details of the present you are so kindly offering them.




> Simply trading is in effect suckering someone else more legal. Have you ever bought heap of shares, for them to go down, so after a while you sell them and they continue to go down? Then you just suckered someone mate. With a click of a mouse in your ivory tower someone somewhere lost money from your transaction.



To call legitimate ordinary market transactions 'suckering' is simply silly.
You will never know what reasons any buyer or seller has for transacting that trade.   Your profit taking can perfectly reasonably be someone else's bargain hunting.





thermalmonster said:


> No one I have spoken to regarding the sale/ purchase of shares would be prepared to sell, donate, inflict, gift, leave in a will or estate,trade or Auction these bloody things without first disclosing the full impact of their actions and its consequence.
> Something most of us retail investors have not had the privilage of.



Yes, you did have that privilege, as you describe it.   We've been over and over this.  The information was out there.  You simply didn't access it.




> FACT!
> 
> There is always in western capitalism someone prepared to make a living out of someone elses miss-fortune  or situation.



That is sadly entirely true.




> This may be a bank offering to lend a person with a poor credit history a very high interest Home Loan



Well, if a bank makes a habit of lending to people with poor credit histories then they won't be in business for very long so you can hardly say they are making a viable living out of so doing.



> or A Pawn broker buying the Family air loom for a song.



I don't know much about pawnbrokers but don't they hold the dreaded family heirloom for a given period before selling it, giving the person who pawned such a treasure a chance to get it back?  Whatever, I don't see that there is any deception involved.  Both parties are clear about what is being offered and sought.  Hardly furthers the argument imo.






> Dont come on here spouting morals, wrongs and rights. Desperate people will do desperate things. Check out the people or companies that put them in that situation.



Again, you are suggesting Macquarie, Brisconnections or whomever acted without full disclosure.  That is simply not right.  Apart from Comsec apparently failing to denote on their final Buy screen that the share was partly paid, no one has come up with any genuine lack of disclosure.
If I've missed it, then I'm more than happy to be corrected.




> Do not sit and judge on pure speculation



On the contrary, Sunder is, as far as I can see, making his comments not on speculation but on the facts as far as they are known at this stage.





thermalmonster said:


> ShaunQ
> 
> I think our Mr Sunder just Trolls around for debate.
> take no Notice



If that were the case I expect we'd be seeing Sunder agitating on all sorts of other threads.   I haven't seen this.
But for sure, Sunder has made himself unpopular with BCSCA investors because he has failed to offer sugar coated sympathy but has rather taken an objective view of what has happened.

That said, I'm immensely sorry for anyone who has been caught up in this.
To have a punt of a few hundred dollars and find oneself owing  tens of thousands or more should not have been possible, regardless of whether the punter carried out full investigations.   
Hopefully the regulators will in future ensure that a signed document of understanding of further payments to be made will have to precede any share purchase of this nature.


----------



## shaunQ (28 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hi Julia, yes, I remember it when it all started. I agree its been over, and I only replied as I felt a different opinion was needed than was being given. I agree its probably best for a different forum about ethics and trading.



> If you wave $1000 in front of an addict all they will see is their next fix. They won't even hear you tell them about the details of the present you are so kindly offering them.






> You will never know what reasons any buyer or seller has for transacting that trade. Your profit taking can perfectly reasonably be someone else's bargain hunting.




Doesn't this contradict. I don't condone drug use or sales of shares to them, but many buyers never heard about their little present either. Perhaps MacBank thought that too, after all, these people grabbed a "bargain" didn't they?



> Is it moral to either offload the debt to someone else who is unaware of it




Again, I don't think anyone has seriously mentioned someone not being aware. 

I think legally it would depend on the circumstances. If it was obviously an attempt to avoid the debt onto someone whom they should have reasonably known would have no chance, then it may be a problem. And also how fair and transparent the transaction was for both parties, like if solicitors were involved.

Legal trickery? I guess is better than Illegal trickery.


----------



## thermalmonster (28 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

So Julia, What will you label my $26,000  debt to Mac Bank as?

Its not a loan
Its not a credit agreement


Do you not think it is responsible for the seller of these shares to vet who they are selling them to? or at least ask the question Can you repay the debt that you will incur 

My point was that this IS on a Par with irresponsible lending.

As for the information being out there, we have discussed this to death also.
It depends what you read. I have seen several anoncements that class them as FPO.

Either way I shall sit this out and see what pans out.

Very worse case scenario there is always the Plane home!


----------



## brty (28 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Sunder,

You did not answer the question about any other way anywhere, where you could accumulate this type of debt whilst being uninformed and unable to pay.(and become indebted with a couple of clicks of a mouse).

Perhaps the reason is that there is nothing else, which makes this situation unique.

brty


----------



## Julia (28 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> So Julia, What will you label my $26,000  debt to Mac Bank as?
> 
> Its not a loan
> Its not a credit agreement
> ...



Thermalmonster, sorry, but I've really nothing further to add.
Maybe read the final paragraph of my last post.
Good luck.


----------



## Sunder (29 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



brty said:


> Sunder,
> 
> You did not answer the question about any other way anywhere, where you could accumulate this type of debt whilst being uninformed and unable to pay.(and become indebted with a couple of clicks of a mouse).
> 
> ...




I gave a reason why I wasn't going to answer that question though. Why are you so obsessed over it?


----------



## brty (29 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Sunder,



> I gave a reason why I wasn't going to answer that question though




It is so important because it is the crux of the matter.

Sophisticated investors can get themselves into all sorts of trouble, but mum and dad type of investors are protected by all sorts of regulation. In this case they are not being protected.

brty


----------



## Calliope (29 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

It is some time since I looked at this thread. Nothing has changed. T/monster has now made 83 posts looking for sympathy for his impulsive share transaction. How many different ways can you portray yourself as a victim?

He is the victim of his own cupidity. His only release from his impending debt  is dependent on the mercy of those he blames for his troubles.


----------



## Prospector (30 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Calliope, we get your point of view, you have had nothing constructive to add other than beating someone when they are down, and I mean, significantly down, TM knows he made a mistake, he is trying to think of anything that will help him, how about just forgetting this thread ever existed huh?  I cant believe you have even counted the number of posts he has made.


----------



## Calliope (30 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> I cant believe you have even counted the number of posts he has made.




You're right. I didn't. It's on his posts. Join Date  Dec 2008. Posts  83.

Everyone is entitled to their point of view on this forum, even if it means upsetting someone's sensibilities.


----------



## shaunQ (30 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> You're right. I didn't. It's on his posts. Join Date Dec 2008. Posts 83. Everyone is entitled to their point of view on this forum, even if it means upsetting someone's sensibilities.




Good for you Calliope, some people are hesitant to appear like a wanker on these forums, good to see your always willing to kick sand in peoples faces while their down.

TM has never asked for sympathy, although some nicer people have offered it. I doubt he wants your sympathy. So what exactly is your point?

Do you go up to homeless people on the street and say, ha, look at you - sucked in - spent all your money on drugs... ha ha. Should have listened at school.. ha ha. Do you walk away proud?


----------



## Calliope (30 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



shaunQ said:


> TM has never asked for sympathy, although some nicer people have offered it. I doubt he wants your sympathy. So what exactly is your point?




My point is;

Why should I have to justify myself to you for having a differing point of view to you?


----------



## shaunQ (30 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> My point is;
> 
> Why should I have to justify myself to you for having a differing point of view to you?




You don't need to as you can never justify kicking someone while there down, regardless of whether your right or wrong, its just mean. You had no point of view - you just attacked him. You offered no ideas, thoughts, suggestions or anything.. you just tried to humiliate him.

If you don't want to bring anything constructive to the forum... why are you here?


----------



## Prospector (30 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> You're right. I didn't. It's on his posts. Join Date  Dec 2008. Posts  83.
> 
> Everyone is entitled to their point of view on this forum, even if it means upsetting someone's sensibilities.




Assuming of course this is the only thread he has posted in. 

You have expressed your point of view very very clearly, on numerous occasions.  It has just gone way past the 'silly boy for doing that' time.  I just can't see why you keep coming into this thread if not to gloat.  And given the situation, I guess I think that sucks.


----------



## Enzyme (30 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Here is a new news article:

Peering deep into a long, dark tunnel


----------



## sails (30 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I do hope they can find a legit and moral way to dispose of their liability.

I am astounded that bcsca is still sitting there every day available for any potentially uneducated online trader to fall into. Does anyone know if Commsec have decided to put some sort of warning prior to these being traded online?  

I also hope there will be some tightening up of the rules to prevent people from unknowingly purchasing sophisticated shares such as these in the future.  

You don't have to be a share market expert to open an online trading account to trade normal shares, however these shares are far from normal.  I think it would be much safer if there were adequate educational requirements prior to gaining approval for trading these types of instalment shares (as there are with derivatives) in the future.


----------



## Rastan (30 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Here is a new news article:
> 
> Peering deep into a long, dark tunnel




I wonder if the guy they mentioned as the biggest shareholder, Nick Bolton (26yo who runs an IT company), wouldn't mind helping all the small time people who got burnt and add to his existing $47.6 mil debt?


----------



## sails (30 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Rastan said:


> I wonder if the guy they mentioned as the biggest shareholder, Nick Bolton (26yo who runs an IT company), wouldn't mind helping all the small time people who got burnt and add to his existing $47.6 mil debt?




I suspect there are all sorts of possibilities being explored.  Any suggestions that they will resort to an illegal or immoral solution can only be an assumption at this stage especially without knowing the facts.  

That said, I have no idea what plans they might be working on, but let's not write them off with assumptions...


----------



## Calliope (30 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



shaunQ said:


> You offered no ideas, thoughts, suggestions or anything.
> If you don't want to bring anything constructive to the forum... why are you here?




And you have:headshake

Obviously we are of different generations. Once it was considered healthy for people to accept responsibility for their own actions. In this new "enlightened' age someone who gets into trouble as a result of their own ill-considered actions is regarded as a victim to be treated with sympathy.

And, of course, if you have a victim you must have a villain. In this case Macquarie  makes a perfect villain.

And it doesn't matter how many warning signs are posted. Some people will ignore them. You see them on the beach every day.


----------



## TheAbyss (30 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



brty said:


> Sunder,
> 
> You did not answer the question about any other way anywhere, where you could accumulate this type of debt whilst being uninformed and unable to pay.(and become indebted with a couple of clicks of a mouse).
> 
> ...





With a few clicks of a mouse i can spend $1000 and owe anywhere from $1000 to $20,000 very quickly. Its called a margin loan but i do pay attention to what i am buying before i take that risk. There are a multitude of vehicles you can lose a lot more than your cash balance. There were some links to a youtube video a while back of a guy losing his entire net worth because he took a position and forgot the market was open on a holiday or something. Either way noone can afford to lose anything when it is so difficult to obtain in the first place.

Not taking sides just pointing out that there are many ways to lose money where money is changing hands. Its been going on for centuries. This is just another way to lose money or make money depending when buy or sell something.

For every tale of woe on this thread there is a very happy camper who offloaded their BCSCA shares. They did lose money also but they are happy.

My advice to those who were left without a chair when the music stopped is is to have faith in the Qld Govt who will not want to be left red faced on this one with an election due not far off the 2nd tranche.

Lot of stress for holders but worrying never fixed anything. You have done all that can be done so you can only wait. The rest of the BS being sprouted is time filler until someone at the helm  of govt or corporate business with a lot more to lose than any individual steps up and makes a decision.


----------



## shaunQ (30 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



TheAbyss said:


> With a few clicks of a mouse i can spend $1000 and owe anywhere from $1000 to $20,000 very quickly. Its called a margin loan but i do pay attention to what i am buying before i take that risk. There are a multitude of vehicles you can lose a lot more than your cash balance. There were some links to a youtube video a while back of a guy losing his entire net worth because he took a position and forgot the market was open on a holiday or something. Either way noone can afford to lose anything when it is so difficult to obtain in the first place.
> 
> Not taking sides just pointing out that there are many ways to lose money where money is changing hands. Its been going on for centuries. This is just another way to lose money or make money depending when buy or sell something




Absolutely, I agree people lose money every day, but when I click on the Margin Loan link in Commsec it just tells me about it. I need to apply. If you put a position on, you are using your own funds and can only lose what you have. You can't short or use CFD's without applying - I can't do any of these automatically.

I haven't been caught up in this, not because of knowledge just because I luckily started trading higher cap stocks. But I can see the ridiculousness of it. The hundreds of books on "Penny stocks" marketed - don't mention STAY AWAY FROM 5 LETTER stocks.

Anyway, just wanted to argue that point again..


----------



## drsmith (31 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> And you have:headshake
> 
> Obviously we are of different generations. Once it was considered healthy for people to accept responsibility for their own actions. In this new "enlightened' age someone who gets into trouble as a result of their own ill-considered actions is regarded as a victim to be treated with sympathy.
> 
> ...



Angels Macquarie ain't.

I find it hard to have sympathy for those who have invested in this without understanding the full implications but at the same time, how does just having a go at someone who has made a poor investment decision advance the discussion ?


----------



## brty (31 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

TheAbyss,



> With a few clicks of a mouse i can spend $1000 and owe anywhere from $1000 to $20,000 very quickly. Its called a margin loan




Please tell me where you can margin up to $20,000 wit only $1000 of your own funds?? I don't believe you can. With 75% margin it is $3000 of theirs to $1000 of yours.

Where this is different is that a spend of $1000 racks up a debt of $2,000,000.
It is vastly different to the margin loan. In the margin loan situation, as soon as you go through your buffer, they will sell you up so that they limit their losses, plus you would have signed documentation that puts your other assets at risk if the worst happens.

brty


----------



## Sunder (31 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

We've discussed this before.

Some people think the world is their rubberised play ground. A wrong move and the worst should just be a skinned knee.

Others think they're playing frogger. One wrong move and it's game over.

How can I convince people that the world isn't fair? That the world isn't safe? I obviously can't. You can rack up far more than $1m of debt for less than $500. Go drive an unregistered car and hit someone. You can have much more serious consequences without even reading a thing or clicking any mouse buttons at all - just ignore some "Caution cliff edge eroding" signs. 

Even so, that doesn't matter. Look at the way most of these people respond when they find themselves in a consequence of their own making. "Let's see if I can decieve someone else into taking these" "Let's see if I can use loop holes in the law to make it someone else's problem" "There is no question of morality here because it's about saving me and my family".

These are the same people with the same mentality who fall off the Epping Road bridge while 4 times over the limit, then sue the council for having too low a fence (Yes that really happened) _It's not my fault, someone has to pay. If I can use the law fine. If I can't I'll still get someone to pay_

Well, the raw, poisonous reality of the world is that it isn't safe, and our society has decided that it is better to have some freedoms and allow a few hundred out of the 21 million in this country suffer for their own foolishness, than restrict the other sensible 21 million. 

I know this has fallen on deaf ears, but it has to be said.


----------



## ROE (31 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



> With a few clicks of a mouse i can spend $1000 and owe anywhere from $1000 to $20,000 very quickly. Its called a margin loan




It's a classic case of buying stuff you don't understand and rule number #1 of investment is you got to know what you are getting into.

You can blame everyone but at the end of the day it's your money and it's your responsibilities and having said that I don't wish ill fate on anyone and wish them luck finding a solution.


----------



## shaunQ (31 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> We've discussed this before.
> 
> Some people think the world is their rubberised play ground. A wrong move and the worst should just be a skinned knee.
> 
> ...




That is the most illogical, irrelevant and ignorant response I have ever heard. Even more so than your inspiring Kidney analogy.  

"Let's see if I can decieve someone else into taking these" "Let's see if I can use loop holes in the law to make it someone else's problem" "There is no question of morality here because it's about saving me and my family".

No-one involved said that. You disgust me with your attitude, and as always making up stories and quotes to suit your own judgmental arguments..

Go drive an unregistered car... brilliant!!!!! Although thats obviously illegal. A better analogy would be being charged $2 million for a taxi ride, but not being told when you get in. 

Same people who jump over fences?... ah... yeah if they had a big carnival, with an entrance saying "Free Bungi Jumping" then tie a rope around your head and throw you off. 

If you want to come up with some sort of relevant, intelligent analogy please do.... using that caring religious, non-judgmental up bringing of course.. cough. 

Keep throwing those stones buddy.


----------



## Calliope (31 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> How can I convince people that the world isn't fair? That the world isn't safe? I obviously can't. You can rack up far more than $1m of debt for less than $500. Go drive an unregistered car and hit someone. You can have much more serious consequences without even reading a thing or clicking any mouse buttons at all - just ignore some "Caution cliff edge eroding" signs.
> 
> Even so, that doesn't matter. Look at the way most of these people respond when they find themselves in a consequence of their own making. "Let's see if I can decieve someone else into taking these" "Let's see if I can use loop holes in the law to make it someone else's problem" "There is no question of morality here because it's about saving me and my family".
> 
> ...




As usual Sunder you have attempted to inject some commonsense into the argument. When I tried to do the same (but not so well ) I was abused in no uncertain terms;

I was called a wanker.

I was accused of beating somebody when they are down, of gloating and kicking sand in peoples faces. I was advised to keep off the thread.

And all because I had pointed out the obvious. Some people prefer to keep their heads in the sand rather than face up to the truth. While there are some on this thread who are genuinely concerned about the plight of the foolish investors, this concern doesn't do them any favours. Just the opposite. It reinforces their view that they are victims.  

Others are using the thread for political point scoring against the capitalism bogey. 

All the rules, regulations and laws that the nanny state can devise can't protect a fool from himself, but as you say, it will just restrict the vast majority from going about their business.

I see you have already attracted Shaun's biased juvenile ranting.


----------



## Prospector (31 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> I was accused of beating somebody when they are down, of gloating and kicking sand in peoples faces. I was advised to keep off the thread..




You are very welcome to stay on the thread Calliope but given the header of this topic reads "Financial Ruin" then once again, repeatedly telling people how stupid they have been is hardly a quality contribution.  Face up to the truth?  They know what the truth is - they have to pay a ****e load of money in April for a purchase that only cost them $500.  

They did nothing illegal, they did not drink drive, they did not drive an unregistered car, so comparing their action in purchasing these options with an illegal action is actually quite offensive.

But hey, why should I care, I might just post again and tell them how stupid they were!  Because I am much cleverer than they are when it comes to such things. 

Have you never, ever done something that was even just a tad impulsive and regretted it later and maybe even thought, phew, I was lucky I got out of that one?  No?  You are obviously a much better person than most then.


----------



## Calliope (31 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> Have you never, ever done something that was even just a tad impulsive and regretted it later and maybe even thought, phew, I was lucky I got out of that one?  No?  You are obviously a much better person than most then.




I lost so much of my retirement fund in the MFS Premium Income Fund debacle that would make T/m's debt look like chicken feed. It was certainly money I could not afford to lose. Too many eggs in one basket.

But as the words of the song go, I had no choice but to "pick myself up, dust myself off and start all over again."


----------



## Prospector (31 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Calliope said:


> I lost so much of my retirement fund in the MFS Premium Income Fund debacle that would make T/m's debt look like chicken feed. It was certainly money I could not afford to lose. Too many eggs in one basket.
> 
> But as the words of the song go, I had no choice but to "pick myself up, dust myself off and start all over again."




Ah yes, damn MFS, I too lost bundles of cash from my Super Fund through MFS, and also ZFX, both of which were/are the result of numerous factors including negligence from both Boards and lack of disclosure.  And sure, maybe I should have sold earlier.  The difference though, is that I (we) only lost the cash we had invested (and which had grown) and I am sure BSCSA options holders would be in heaven if that was all they had lost - the money they put in.  But they have, for whatever reason, not only lost that, but they have this humungous debt to pay.  If that outstanding liability wasnt made clear through their broker, when other brokers saw fit to do so, then the issue of disclosure is certainly important.  

And the amount they paid - $500 - where on earth can spending $500 buy you that much debt?


----------



## grace (31 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

If I was to put a buy order in for say $5,000,000 BHP shares, I'm sure my online broker account would not let me do it.  Have not tried it, but I'm sure I would not have enough collateral to make such a purchase.  I remember when I first started building up my portfolio, commsec wouldn't let me put in additional buy orders until my previous buys had been cleared.

I guess when one orders these partly paid shares, a similar thing should happen, to check that you have enough collateral to make such a purchase.

Some time back when I first started mucking around with some share trading, I used to trade the partly paid Telstra shares.  These were actually my first ever short-term trades.  I made quite a few profitable trades, then they went down and never really came back.  I got stuck with them and had to pay up.  I had the money though, and always had it in the back of my mind what was owing.  It was very public knowledge that what I was trading were partly paid shares.  

Whilst I sympathise with those who are stressed because of this, we have all made mistakes.  I employed someone once who was very deceitful.  This cost me a very large 6 digit sum, because of the outcomes that came from that employment.  This persons sole ambition was to destroy me (this person had a mental illness).  That did hurt, but one has to move on.  Hopefully I'll never repeat that mistake again.


----------



## dirty_harry (31 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



grace said:


> If I was to put a buy order in for say $5,000,000 BHP shares, I'm sure my online broker account would not let me do it.  Have not tried it, but I'm sure I would not have enough collateral to make such a purchase.  I remember when I first started building up my portfolio, commsec wouldn't let me put in additional buy orders until my previous buys had been cleared.
> 
> I guess when one orders these partly paid shares, a similar thing should happen, to check that you have enough collateral to make such a purchase.



This is a really good point. 
I expect the difference is that online brokers nned to protect their own liabilities in the case of share purchases, but are not interested in the liabilites of others with respect to BrisConnect as it is not their problem.


----------



## shaunQ (31 January 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



grace said:


> If I was to put a buy order in for say $5,000,000 BHP shares, I'm sure my online broker account would not let me do it.  Have not tried it,




Actually, you should try it.. Commsec will put it through happily, off the record up to 25K or so. Previously they stated in their terms and conditions they provided automatic credit of 25K, now it just says an "amount" of automatic credit is provided. But can guarantee you it would probably still be around the 25K mark.

It only matters if you go past T2. So really, they only risk 2 days market movement on the 25K.


----------



## Sunder (1 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



shaunQ said:


> "There is no question of morality here because it's about saving me and my family".
> 
> No-one involved said that.






shaunQ said:


> its immoral? No its not. Its survival. *Doing what you need to do to protect yourself or your family is not and can never be immoral, because the principal is just. Its like stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family. *




How convenient "you're not involved". You're an advocate of stealing and breaking the law to save your family, because it's not unjust, but "no-one _involved_ said that". So I conceed to you the literal truth, but it's quite clear you love to twist the truth to suit your argument. 

I could continue to shred apart every half truth and twisted reality you use but you've shown to us clearly your character, and I hardly feel it's necessary any more. Considering more than half your last post was personal provocation and added nothing to the debate, I feel I would only be lowering myself to your level to even consider answering any more of your accusations.


----------



## shaunQ (1 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> How convenient "you're not involved". You're an advocate of stealing and breaking the law to save your family, because it's not unjust, but "no-one _involved_ said that". So I conceed to you the literal truth, but it's quite clear you love to twist the truth to suit your argument.




Yes, that is right and it was deliberate as you were continually talking down the character of the Brisconnections shareholders through generalisations, when really most statements were made by people not "involved"... like myself.

And yes, I stand by my statement. The reference was actually from the bible. But if my family was starving and I had the opportunity to steal bread from a local store or rich person, I'd take it. No second thoughts. No concern of morality. I'm sure, though, if you caught me, you'd have me strung and quartered, but I would die the better man.

I am happy, as I'm sure others are, to stop this conversation. We have indeed adding nothing useful. Apologies to all.


----------



## shaunQ (1 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

In other news - to try and put this back on topic...



> Airport Link human resource manager Brian Connell said 500 workers would be recruited in February for the BrisConnections project building the northern busway tunnel and upgrading the airport roundabout. The project needs 1500 workers, with just 50 vacancies filled so far. "We have been absolutely swamped (with applications), which is a good position to be in," Connell said.




http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24986106-3102,00.html


----------



## dogby (2 February 2009)

*MAFCA - the next BCSCA*

MAFCA, currently trading at 1 cent. Previously it has traded much higher.

Those interested in picking it up as a speculative punt may not realise immediately that there is a 40cents installment per share to be made in 2011.

If you picked up 500,000 shares for $5000, you'd be up for $200,000 in 2011.

Similar - thought not quite as leveraged, situation as BCSCA.


----------



## Enzyme (2 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Someone just brought 1,000,000 Briscon shares.

$1,000 for a $2 million debt.


----------



## Julia (2 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

This is surprising indeed and begs the question that the current BCSCA shareholders do in fact have their shares listed for sale?

Interesting that some sellers are even hoping to get more than the $.001
for their shares.


----------



## cuttlefish (2 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I still don't understand why this stock hasn't been suspended to prevent people from falling into the trap.


----------



## Julia (2 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> I still don't understand why this stock hasn't been suspended to prevent people from falling into the trap.



Cuttlefish, if there is someone prepared to buy - as Enzyme has pointed out and is confirmed by screenshot of market depth - then wouldn't it be unfair to all the existing holders who are desperate to sell?

E-trade still have the $1 paid, $2 to be paid in bold letters on the order screen.  Can any Comsec user have a look and see if they have added this to their website?


----------



## Enzyme (2 February 2009)

*Re: MAFCA - the next BCSCA*

It is no longer just Brisconnections laying this trap.  As dogby pointed out on the previous page, Multiplex Prime Property Fund (MAFCA) is in the process of turning into another Brisconnections.  They are just like Brisconnections in late October/Early November last year.

MAFCA suspended their dividend two weeks ago.  The share price has plunged to $0.01.  Anyone investing $1k at this price will get a $40k liability to be paid in 2011.  There are a lot more sellers than buyers and I can't see any reason why they will not hit the same $0.001 floor that Brisconnections have.  If that happens then any buyer investing $1k will get a $400k liability!


----------



## vincent191 (2 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Someone just brought 1,000,000 Briscon shares.
> 
> $1,000 for a $2 million debt.





Why would anyone do this??? I don't understand.


----------



## Enzyme (2 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



vincent191 said:


> Why would anyone do this??? I don't understand.



Sorry, I'm not sure which bit you mean.

If it is "why did someone just give themselves a 2 million debt buy buying $1,000 worth of these shares" I guess the answer is that they didn't realise the liability associated with these shares when they brought them.

If it is "how is it possible to get such a massive debt for investing just $1,000" then it will take a bit longer to explain.  Try starting with these:

http://business.smh.com.au/business/how-will-mrs-he-find-the-65m-20081109-5kvl.html

http://business.watoday.com.au/business/another-brisconnections-bolt-from-the-blue-20081125-6his.html?page=1


----------



## cuttlefish (2 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> Cuttlefish, if there is someone prepared to buy - as Enzyme has pointed out and is confirmed by screenshot of market depth - then wouldn't it be unfair to all the existing holders who are desperate to sell?
> 
> E-trade still have the $1 paid, $2 to be paid in bold letters on the order screen.  Can any Comsec user have a look and see if they have added this to their website?




My view is that the stock should have been suspended well before it reached 1c and definitely before it hit .01c.   Once it became an illogical purchase for retail investors and not reflecting a true market then it should have been suspended.

The person that bought stock today is highly unlikely to have been a multimillionaire that can afford the $2 million debt - so they are probably another uninformed/ignorant investor that has bought themselves a massive liability.  I just don't see much good in one poor unsuspecting holder offloading onto another poor unsuspecting holder.


----------



## thermalmonster (2 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Absolutely right cuttlefish.

After All the complaints etc you would have thought this would be so. However I suppose suspending it now would be an admission of guilt.



Sunder -Not after your Sympathy or anyone else for that matter.
I understand my mistakes, the cause & affect.

Thanks to the folk that have contributed fairly to the thread without patronising  and be-littleing people.


----------



## drsmith (2 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

While the units should not be trading suspending them now does not solve the underlying problem and could create now ones. If suspended it's easy to imagine the lawyers slugging out over "You denied me the right to be able to offer the securities for sale on the market".

The honorable (and perhaps most practical) solution would be for the underwriters to create a market for the securities by offering $0.001 per share on market for those who wish to sell.


----------



## Julia (2 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



drsmith said:


> While the units should not be trading suspending them now does not solve the underlying problem and could create now ones. If suspended it's easy to imagine the lawyers slugging out over "You denied me the right to be able to offer the securities for sale on the market".



Yes, It's along those lines that I was thinking, i.e. that it just wouldn't be right for current holders not to have the right to legitimately sell them on the open market.

I understand what you're saying, Cuttlefish and appreciate the logic, but wouldn't it also be creating an unacceptable precedent?  On what basis would the lawyers say the stock should have been suspended?
If the PDS clearly stated the stock's status and both E-trade and NAB (and perhaps other brokers we don't know about) also clearly stated that status on the Buy screen, I don't know what more could have been done.

(Here I'm absolutely not meaning to be critical of BCSCA holders but rather thinking of how lawyers would approach it.)

So do you feel any stock should be suspended from trade after it reaches some arbitrary low?  How would this be determined?

Seems like a real minefield to me.

Wouldn't any potential buyer realise there was a problem with simply looking at the market depth?

Another possibility which may be completely wrong:  could that purchase today have been BCSCA itself attempting to 'create a market', or Macquarie doing this?


----------



## joeyjoejoe (2 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

i must admit todays trade really gives me no joy to know that one persons nightmare has ended and one pour souls has only just begun.

it dosent change anything really..

its just as likely to end up back on the sell side at 0.01 very soon with no outcome..


----------



## cuttlefish (3 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Julia, I understand where you are coming from but the head-in-the sand approach that the ASX has taken to this irks me enormously.

They could introduce a rule that margin needs to be lodged before people can purchase that level of liability - but thats probably too hard to implement from a systems point of view.   The whole ASX self regulating thing is a bit of a joke imo.


----------



## sails (3 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I don't understand why the ASX don't require a basic educational standard for instalment shares BEFORE being approved to trade them.  Something similar to that which is already in place with derivatives.

Broker software currently disallows trading in derivatives unless separate paperwork is filled out and relevant, basic education material (PDF files available online) has been read.

I would think that would be a win:win all round.  It would keep uninformed investors out while allowing informed investors the ability to trade these  unrestricted.   If new people don't bother to read the educational material, then they really do have themselves to blame.


----------



## GreatPig (4 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> Broker software currently disallows trading in derivatives unless separate paperwork is filled out and relevant, basic education material (PDF files available online) has been read.



In theory. In practice all you have to do is sign the paperwork to say you've _read_ said educational material, but you don't have to actually read it.

Of course you could then say that it's your own fault, in that you _should have_ read it before you started trading derivatives, just like you should read every PDS before trading those instruments, just like you should read every licence agreement before using new software, just like you should read every word of your mortgage agreement before signing on the dotted line, just like you should read...

It's getting to be like the boy who cried wolf. So many of those things you should read are a waste of time, that you're likely to assume the same about things that actually are important.

GP


----------



## sails (4 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



GreatPig said:


> In theory. In practice all you have to do is sign the paperwork to say you've _read_ said educational material, but you don't have to actually read it.
> 
> Of course you could then say that it's your own fault, in that you _should have_ read it before you started trading derivatives, just like you should read every PDS before trading those instruments, just like you should read every licence agreement before using new software, just like you should read every word of your mortgage agreement before signing on the dotted line, just like you should read...
> 
> ...




GP, I had more in mind something like this 4 page booklet found on the ASX site: http://www.asx.com.au/markets/pdf/optionssimpleguide.pdf.  People are more likely to read a short document with the basic, but important, facts than to wade through a 100 page PDS in legal speak.

Might only need to be a couple of pages but at least it could explain how the increasing ratio of debt vs. investment moves into alarming levels of debt, particularly as the share price drops to extreme low levels.  It could point out the danger should there be no more buyers.   Some examples would help - bcsca would be a good one to include.   It could also state the necessity of reading the relevant PDS before trading.  

Obviously all other precautions should remain in place such as every effort being made to ensure that potential investors are properly informed and also brokers ensuring adequate notification of further debt before the point of sale.

You obviously don't like my suggestion.  Do you have any better ideas on how to help prevent ordinary Mums and Dads, often new to the share market, falling into a trap such as this?


----------



## Enzyme (4 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Poetic justice anyone?  link



> The PDS document states that chairman Trevor Rowe and two other directors of the BrisConnections board must spend a percentage of their annual pay buying the toxic stapled units.
> 
> "Trevor Rowe will receive a base fee of $210,000 per annum and $10,000 per annum for chairing remuneration and nomination committees," the document states. "Forty per cent of these fees will be directed to the purchase of stapled units on market."
> 
> ...






























Okay.  I know didn't quote the entire article, and the bits I left off kinda change the result a bit, but I just couldn't spoil such beautiful irony


----------



## Prospector (4 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

_*Indeed, if Rowe has been spending 40 per cent of his weekly $4230 pay packet on the units since November 23, the chairman should have bought about 16.92 million of them in the past 10 weeks alone. The instalment payments due on those shares would be $33.84 million.*_

They must be off market then because there have hardly been any sales showing in the market depth.  And if there had been, the people on this forum would have had their problem solved.


----------



## Enzyme (4 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

The salary deductions that will go towards buying the stapled securities have so far gone into a trust account.  No shares have been purchased so far.  They will be purchased on or around the last week of June.  Obviously after the first installment.

Sorry, I didn't quote that bit from the original story and that was misleading.  It just sounded so much better without including it.


----------



## drsmith (4 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> The salary deductions that will go towards buying the stapled securities have so far gone into a trust account.  No shares have been purchased so far.  They will be purchased on or around the last week of June.  Obviously after the first installment.



Based on the above those directors will still have a keen interest in the share price after that installment, particurally if it remains at or near $0.001.


----------



## cuttlefish (4 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> The salary deductions that will go towards buying the stapled securities have so far gone into a trust account.  No shares have been purchased so far.  They will be purchased on or around the last week of June.  Obviously after the first installment.
> 
> Sorry, I didn't quote that bit from the original story and that was misleading.  It just sounded so much better without including it.




Its still an interesting situation ... he is still liable for another $1 on the warrants that he does purchase before end of June - and its highly likely the post 2nd instalment price will still be well below $1.

In some ways its unfortunate that he didn't have to purchase them right now - because I'm sure once in the same predicament as all the other poor people caught out by this he'd possibly be taking a MUCH more proactive approach to a fair and equitable solution.


----------



## Enzyme (5 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I agree it is an intriguing situation.

I had assumed that the fact that Trevor Rowe would be getting paid the BrisCon shares component of his salary after the first instalment date would mean that he wouldn't have a liability problem.  That he could sell his shares easily.  But this might not be the case. I've just had a quick look at River City.  If you take them as guide there might still be no market after the first instalment payment.  RiverCity has a LOT in common with Brisconnections.  Indeed Brisconnections could be seen as a clone of RiverCity:

- both are toll roads in Brisbane;
- both were setup to pay dividends out of capital until the roads were opened and motorists started paying;
- both were stapled securities with instalment payments;
- both suspended their dividends late last year when the markets hit troubles (BrisCon's $0.005 dividend is effectively a suspension)

But RiverCity has a few things going for it that BrisCon doesn't:
- all of its instalment payments have already been made;
- It is 18 months from completion.  Paying customers are on the horizon.  BrisCon are three and a half years away from seeing a paying customer.
- most of their construction risk is behind them.  They've done more than 75% of the work and are on track.  The chances of them hitting a snag or technical problem that could delay their opening diminishes by the day.  BrisCon has just started their work so they have more risk that they could hit problems;

With those factors in mind, there can't be any doubt that RiverCity is a better placed company than BrisConnections.  The RiverCity price is currently down 84%.  If that same performance was applied the BrisCon (and that could be generous for the reasons given) then the BrisCon price would be 48 cents after the full $3 has been paid.  It is seems entirely possible that they could still be 'trading' at $0.001 after the next instalment.

My very rough estimate has Rowe purchasing about $46,000 (after tax) worth of Brisconnections shares on or around 30 June.  He really could be looking at a $46 million liability in 2010 if things don't improve, or if he doesn't resign soon to try to avoid the liability.  I wonder if he resigns before 30 June does he have to get paid out his accumulated component in BrisCon shares?  Could we see the chairman and directors all resign to avoid being paid in their own stock?


----------



## GreatPig (5 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> You obviously don't like my suggestion



It's not that I don't like it, just that I don't think it would be terribly effective. Unless the person actually has to sit a knowledge test and get a certain percentage correct, similar to a written driving test, I think most will just do what they do with licence agreements: yeah, yeah, blah, blah - tick.

I remember when I first signed up with HSBC (who later shuffled us off to Etrade), there was so much paperwork to fill in with regard to personal details, 100 point identity check, interbank transfer authorisation, etc, etc that the "tick this box if you've read the warrants booklet" was the easy bit - took all of two seconds! 

I did in fact read it later, along with a lot of other info on warrants, but that's not to say everyone would.

GP


----------



## sails (6 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



GreatPig said:


> It's not that I don't like it, just that I don't think it would be terribly effective. Unless the person actually has to sit a knowledge test and get a certain percentage correct, similar to a written driving test, I think most will just do what they do with licence agreements: yeah, yeah, blah, blah - tick.
> 
> I remember when I first signed up with HSBC (who later shuffled us off to Etrade), there was so much paperwork to fill in with regard to personal details, 100 point identity check, interbank transfer authorisation, etc, etc that the "tick this box if you've read the warrants booklet" was the easy bit - took all of two seconds!
> 
> ...




Fair enough, GP   However, from my own experience, when signing that you have actually read a required booklet prior to gaining trading permissions reinforces that you are totally responsible for the inherent risks of trading those derivatives, or in this case, instalment shares.  

With the potential horrendous levels of debt vs. investment in the likes of bcsca, it seems reasonable to have another safety net in place.  If people sign without gaining the basic education, then they really only have themselves to blame if/when things go wrong, IMO.


----------



## Jam (10 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I've just come into this whole debate and I'm confused as to why anyone would want to buy these shares NOW? apparently there is someone out there who is willing to? what possible motive could they have?


----------



## Julia (10 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Jam said:


> I've just come into this whole debate and I'm confused as to why anyone would want to buy these shares NOW? apparently there is someone out there who is willing to? what possible motive could they have?



Presumably the same reason offered by the original purchasers, i.e. they fail to see the $2 still to pay and consider they are snaffling a bargain.


----------



## Sunder (11 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I'd be keen to see which brokers are being used to transact these sales. If one broker is disproportionately represented, it would say something about the effectiveness of disclosure or otherwise.


----------



## Shine (12 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



rocket12 said:


> There would be a few hundred of us.  Check your private messages then email me if you want to join in.




Any more news?  I'm another of the scared people involved.  There seems to be a few of us.


----------



## bigdog (12 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

TWO ASX Feb 3 2009 ANN 
03/02/2009 	Half Yearly Report and Accounts

03/02/2009 		Financial Results Release 
http://media.wotnews.com.au/asxann/00924366.pdf
3 February 2009

BrisConnections announces financial results for the period ended 31 December 2008  and confirms project construction is on‐time and on‐budget  BrisConnections (ASX: BCSCA) today announced financial results for the seven‐month period from 29 May to 31 December 2008.  

This is BrisConnections’ first financial results announcement following its listing on the Australian Securities Exchange on 31 July 2008.  The financial results were as expected and reflect the progress BrisConnections has made in constructing the Airport Link toll road in Brisbane, which officially commenced on 6 November 2008.  

BrisConnections Chairman Mr Trevor Rowe AM said the project is proceeding to plan and excellent progress had been made in the design and construction of the largest road infrastructure project in Australian history.  

“It is pleasing to see such a great start to this exciting and essential project.  Construction is well underway: more than 1000 people are now working on the project and all four sites are well established. We are moving at a rapid rate physically with major tunnelling equipment arriving and site clearances underway.   

“When completed Airport Link will provide a compelling solution to serious traffic issues in the Brisbane metropolitan area. It will be the longest road tunnel in Australia of more than 5.7 kilometres, with the total project extending over 8 kilometres including the Airport Roundabout Upgrade. Airport Link will reduce travel times by up to 50% and avoid up to 18 sets of traffic lights.   

“BrisConnections is fully funded and we are well positioned to continue delivering on the construction phase of the project. We have syndicated debt facilities in place, which we began drawing on recently.  Also the two remaining instalments are fully underwritten by Macquarie Capital Advisers and Deutsche BanK.  

“While we are naturally disappointed with our security price performance in the current market, I firmly believe Airport Link is a high quality infrastructure project that will deliver significant benefits to the community and the Queensland economy once completed.  The success of this project, I believe, will provide significant value and future returns to our security holders,” Mr Rowe said.   

For the financial period, BrisConnections incurred approximately $690 million associated with project funding, design and development, acquisition of plant and equipment, and initial construction costs.  This is in line with its budget.  Once Airport Link is complete, total project costs are expected to be approximately $4.8 billion.   

In accordance with its accounting policies, BrisConnections has capitalised as future tolling rights approximately $445 million associated with the design and construction phase of the project.  

Since listing on the ASX, BrisConnections has achieved a number of important project milestones including establishment of a highly experienced management team and project workforce; the signing of a $90 million contract to acquire two tunnel boring machines; commencement of construction in November 2008; and the drawing down of the fully committed finance facilities to fund the project.  In addition, the first two roadheaders are ready to commence operations shortly with another three starting over the next 4 months and a further six over the balance of the project.    

“We are preparing for busy times ahead and are confident that Airport Link, Northern Busway (Windsor to Kedron) and the Airport Roundabout Upgrades will be completed and operational on‐time and on‐budget, in accordance with construction contract timetable of June 2012” Mr Rowe said.   

Second Instalment – updated timetable

BrisConnections confirms the second instalment of $1.00 on BrisConnections partly paid stapled units is due on Wednesday 29 April 2009.  A Call Notice, setting out the total amount payable and details of how that amount should be paid, is expected to be despatched to unitholders on or around Monday 2 March 2009.


----------



## bigdog (12 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

03/02/2009 Financial Results Release
http://media.wotnews.com.au/asxann/00924366.pdf

Relevant dates relating to the payment of the final instalment are:  
Mail Call Notice to Unitholders      Monday 2 March 2009  

Last day of partly paid trading      Wednesday 15 April 2009  

Commencement of call paid trading on a deferred settlement basis Thursday 16 April 2009   

Last day for settlement of partly paid “call unpaid” trades  Monday 20 April 2009  

Last day for accepting transfers without call money attached  Wednesday 22 April 2009   

Call payment due date for second instalment    Wednesday 29 April 2009   

Despatch date, last day to enter instalment paid securities into the register        Wednesday 6 May 2009   

Normal T+3 settlement trading on ASX     Thursday 7 May 2009


----------



## Macquack (12 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



bigdog said:


> TWO ASX Feb 3 2009 ANN
> 03/02/2009 	Half Yearly Report and Accounts
> 
> 03/02/2009 		Financial Results Release
> ...




So, a road of total length of 8 kilometres is "the largest road infrastructure project in Australian history". Could have fooled me. What about the other 800,000 odd kilometres of roads built in Australia, they obviously dont rate a mention.

"Total project costs are expected to be approximately $4.8 billion".
$4.8 billion / 8 kilometres = $600 million per kilometre, or *$600,000 per lineal metre*.

Thank God that Macquarie Group were not responsible for building all the roads in Australia, otherwise we would still have dirt tracks.


----------



## JimBob (12 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Maybe when he says largest, what he means is most expensive.  $4.8billion must be right up there.


----------



## Absolutely (15 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Macquack said:


> So, a road of total length of 8 kilometres is "the largest road infrastructure project in Australian history". Could have fooled me. What about the other 800,000 odd kilometres of roads built in Australia, they obviously dont rate a mention.
> 
> "Total project costs are expected to be approximately $4.8 billion".
> $4.8 billion / 8 kilometres = $600 million per kilometre, or *$600,000 per lineal metre*.
> ...




I'm close to the project through my own work. It's a big job. A lot of the road is going to be tunnels - that makes it very expensive.

Without a doubt it is one of the largest infrastructure projects in the country right now. And Brisbane has got some other big ones underway such at Gateway Bridge duplication.

The project is going forward. From where I sit there is no qestion that things are now ramping up to full construction. Eventually these shares are going to be worth something.


----------



## Prospector (15 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Absolutely said:


> Eventually these shares are going to be worth something.




Small comfort to those who might be declared bankrupt in April because they cant meet the first instalment!


----------



## tigerboi (15 February 2009)

*Re:$4.8B FOR 8KM TUNNEL?MASSIVE BACKHANDERS TO?*

Is someone taking the piss?or is it true that the tunnel in brisbane is worth $4.8b for 8kms?

As a professional heavy vehicle operator that has driven on every highway & tunnel between sydney-brisbane-melbourne-adelaide i can say without hesitation that there must be some massive backhanders going on.

harbour tunnel(yes shorter) cost about $550m in 1992

m5 east 10 kms cost $794m in 2001

 no way this is worth $4.8b(6 times the M5 EAST...please)

plus brisbane tipper drivers are on crap money...TB


http://www.jameshardiefrcpipes.com.au/solutions/infrastructure_projects/project_info

http://www.ats.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=356&Itemid=8(5KM SPIT TUNNEL ONLY WORTH $1B)


----------



## Macquack (15 February 2009)

*Re: $4.8B FOR 8KM TUNNEL?MASSIVE BACKHANDERS TO?*



tigerboi said:


> i can say without hesitation that there must be some *massive backhanders *going on.




An example of one backhander as posted by Enzyme#774 



> TWO influential Labor figures shared a "success fee" after their consulting effort helped a consortium win the Government Airport link contract.
> 
> Former politicians Terry Mackenroth and Con Sciacca pocketed a huge windfall, believed to be about *$500,000*, after the BrisConnections consortium won the tunnel tender.




Ironically, this single backhander is now worth more than the whole company.


----------



## tigerboi (16 February 2009)

*Re:THEY WILL GO BANKRUPT LIKE THE SYDNEY TUNNEL*

I visited their website after my post to have a decent look at the project,so i believe the tunnel itself is 6.7 kms long with another 1.3km link to make it 8kms.

When i run a few quick numbers on this I CANNOT SEE HOW THEY WONT GO BANKRUPT!

gross cost is $4.8b(so far),they intend to charge $4.85 to use the road.

so correct me someone if im wrong,on the gross re:without wages etc of the operators.this mob will need 1b vehicles to break even?

Does anyone know what the vehicle projections were?

I still cannot get over the cost of this as there is no way people in brisbane will pay $4.85 atm(that will be $6.00 when it opens)

so my first thoughts about massive backhanders was correct.

has work started on it yet? i only usually run into rocklea,archerfield freight areas so havent seen that area,i was over at tingalpa before xmas & got to see the work on the gateway close up, sheesh worse than peak hour m5/m4.

tried but cant find projected numbers on traffic...tb


----------



## drsmith (16 February 2009)

*Re: THEY WILL GO BANKRUPT LIKE THE SYDNEY TUNNEL*

I have not studied the financials of this project in detail but make the following general comments. 

If the project was financed on the basis of generating a 5% annual income return (for example's sake) on the capital investment (ignoring operating and maintainance costs) then ~50m vehicles per year (~134000 vehicles per day) are required with a toll of $4.85.

Whether or not it goes broke will depend somewhat on the level of any debt financing and hence whether the tolls will cover costs + loan interest.


----------



## Sunder (16 February 2009)

*Re: THEY WILL GO BANKRUPT LIKE THE SYDNEY TUNNEL*



tigerboi said:


> so correct me someone if im wrong,on the gross re:without wages etc of the operators.this mob will need 1b vehicles to break even?
> 
> Does anyone know what the vehicle projections were?




I recall the Sydney Harbour Bridge (excluding Tunnel) was about 300,000 cars a day. 

5 days a week = 1.5 million cars

52 weeks a year = 78 million cars.

10 years = 780 million cars. 

Not far from your 1b figure. 

That doesn't even count the weekends, which although nothing like 300,000 a day, would add something. I have no idea how long they have the tolling rights for, but 20 years, and they stand to make a nice tidy profit.


----------



## Nervous (17 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Shine said:


> Any more news?  I'm another of the scared people involved.  There seems to be a few of us.




Shine, I too am another scared investor.  I am unsure how to proceed other than getting my own legal advice, which does not appear to look promising.

Any suggestions or others in the same boat?  If you don't want to post anything, PM me instead.


----------



## alphaman (17 February 2009)

*Re: THEY WILL GO BANKRUPT LIKE THE SYDNEY TUNNEL*



Sunder said:


> I recall the Sydney Harbour Bridge (excluding Tunnel) was about 300,000 cars a day.



I would imagine Sydney has far greater traffic than Brisbane.


----------



## JimBob (17 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

The Gateway Bridge in Brisbane gets a bit over 100,000 vehicles per day on average (from Gateway Upgrade Project website),growing at about 6-7% per year (for a comparison). Im not sure how many would be going to the airport, but a lot less than 100,000.


----------



## tigerboi (17 February 2009)

*Re: THEY WILL GO BANKRUPT LIKE THE SYDNEY TUNNEL*



Sunder said:


> I recall the Sydney Harbour Bridge (excluding Tunnel) was about 300,000 cars a day.
> 
> 5 days a week = 1.5 million cars...actual figures(795,000)
> 
> ...




not in the same ball park comparing it to the harbour bridge.anyhow traffic in 2001 was 159,597...dont know where you got 300,000 from?see the link provided...http://www.sydneyharbourbridge.info/



alphaman said:


> I would imagine Sydney has far greater traffic than Brisbane.





so 13,400 required just to recoup the original investment?,just as i thought there is no way this will break even.very poor investment in my view more so when you consider what the rta did to the cross city tunnel.

just confirms that you must do your homework if your putting your own coin into this type of set up.


seems like one giant gouge off unsuspecting punters,how many shares were issued at the ipo?

im still baffled how anyone could think a $4.8b tunnel could make money in brisbane?

i see leightons & mac bank put it together,well it cant be going on wages as wal king is on record as wanting overseas scab indentured labour for his companies projects.

what a farce,wonder how many shifty backhanders have been served up?


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (17 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

http://business.smh.com.au/business/brisconnections-shareholder-revolts-20090217-89v8.html

LOl so what exactly did the board think, he was just gonna bend over and let then take every cent he had without a fight?

Sir O


----------



## sails (17 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Nervous said:


> Shine, I too am another scared investor.  I am unsure how to proceed other than getting my own legal advice, which does not appear to look promising.
> 
> Any suggestions or others in the same boat?  If you don't want to post anything, PM me instead.




Shine and Nervous - here's a link to Dondi's lastest post - he said he was involved in the action group.  https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=385734#post385734.  He has an email address in there or you could send him a private message.  Just left click on the user name found on the left hand side of the post and you will see a link to click on for private message.

While Dondi was criticized for using a gmail address, I'm assuming he didn't want to put his own on a public forum due to spamming issues, so I wouldn't be put off by that.

You might also want to contact some of the others caught up in this: rocket12, Bushie and thermalmonster, so you could try searching for their user names in this thread and sending them a private message as well. Rocket12 was very involved originally in the action group and was working together with the ASA - here is the last post of his that I can find in this thread: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=379708#post379708.  However, I would suggest sending a quick PM off to all of them.  They were looking for as many as possible to group together. Those affected have gone very quiet lately, so perhaps they are working on a solution. 

If you can't make contact, perhaps try the ASA (Australian Share Assoc.)

Sincerely wishing you all the best and hopefully there will be a positive outcome.


----------



## investorpaul (17 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



> http://business.smh.com.au/business/...0217-89v8.html




In the article it says that unit holders would still be required to make the payment even if the trust was round up???

But if they sell their units to this guy then, they are no longer unit holders???


----------



## bigdog (17 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

SHH article today
http://business.smh.com.au/business/brisconnections-shareholder-revolts-20090217-89v8.html

*BrisConnections shareholder revolts*
Mark Hawthorne
February 17, 2009 - 1:16PM

A Melbourne IT company owner who last year emerged as the biggest shareholder in Brisbane tollroad builder BrisConnections has called an extraordinary general meeting to wind up the company's trusts, in an attempt to avoid paying $94 million in part-payments he owes on the shares he owns.

The move has thrown the future of Brisbane's $4.8 billion Airport Link, Northern Busway (Windsor to Kedron) and Airport Roundabout Upgrade projects into doubt.

There are 1100 people employed on the toll road projects now, with 2500 jobs to be created in total.

There's little doubt that BrisConnections is top contender for the title of worst float in Australian corporate history.

The company now has a market cap of just over $300,000, and a $500 investment in the company's 0.1 unit trusts bring with it a further $1 million of debt - in two $1 instalments that are yet to be paid.    

Nick Bolton, the 26-year-old from St Kilda who scooped up 47.6 million BrisConnections shares just before Christmas for a $47,600 outlay, has learned the hard way. He is now liable to pay $94 million as a result of his punt.

Bolton's private company Australian Style Investments Pty Ltd is a substantial unit holder in BrisConnections, with a 12.28% stake (47,923,166 units). All but 280,000 of these units were bought via Westpac Securities on  November 24 last year, 2008 when the units were trading at .01 each.

The additional 280,000 units were purchased off market last week.

Bolton's move to wind-up the company was announced to the market this morning, after documents were lodged on Thursday, and have met with an angry response from the company's board.

BrisConnections chairman Trevor Rowe described the move to call a meeting to vote on winding up the trusts as ''a misguided and ineffective attempt to avoid its future obligations to BrisConnections''.

In order to have Brisconnections' trusts wound-up, Bolton will need 75% of the vote.  

According to Rowe, unitholders will still be liable to pay the two further $1 instalments, even if Bolton is successful at the EGM.

''BrisConnections is very concerned that unit holders may misunderstand the impact of a winding up on the liability of unit holders,'' Rowe said.

''Winding up the trusts will not remove the obligation on unit holders to pay the outstanding amounts on their units including the next $1 instalment that will be called on 2 March, 2009. Regardless of the outcome of the meeting, unit holders will remain liable.

''Clearly, this proposal is not in the best interests of all unit holders and will be vigorously opposed by BrisConnections directors. In the event of the winding up proceeding BrisConnections would have no alternative but to cease trading which would leave unit holders in the position of still needing to contribute additional amounts into an entity which can never generate income.

''The consequences of winding up BrisConnections would result in complete destruction of future unit holder value,'' Mr Rowe stated.

mhawthorne@theage.com.au


----------



## nomore4s (17 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



investorpaul said:


> In the article it says that unit holders would still be required to make the payment even if the trust was round up???
> 
> But if they sell their units to this guy then, they are no longer unit holders???




I only had a quick look at the article but I don't think they sell the shares to him only vote with him to shut down the trusts - he needs 75% of the votes I think, be interesting to see if he gets it.

If he does it says alot about how many people/shareholders have got caught up in this mess without fully understanding what they were getting into.

Surely he must have some sort of legal advice that if he can shut down the trusts he may be able to get out of the next installment? Or maybe it becomes easier to stall or put off the payment?
People could end up voting with him in the hope they can get out of it.


----------



## Prospector (17 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Dondi = Bolton


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (17 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



investorpaul said:


> In the article it says that unit holders would still be required to make the payment even if the trust was round up???




Well that is Trevor Rowe's contention. Of course this may be accurate depending upon how heavily the first installment has been geared and what the conditions of the lending agreement are.

EG 330 Million *3 DOES NOT EQUAL 4.8 BILLION dollars.  So a significant level of gearing has to occur.  Depending upon what the lending agreement between Brisconnections and the consortium of banks that are being used to fund the difference is, will determine what level of exposure the current shareholders have. There is a question however whether this lending agreement can be challenged becuase I assume that Nick Bolton's lawyers would have told him that already, and they must think it has a chance.

Remember what I said a long time ago however - These infrastructure plays are designed to get to the end of construction with a *small* pool of money left over to tide them over until traffic on the road ramps up and they start getting revenue.  If the company is spending large amounts of money defending itself against actions, that makes the pool that much smaller (and eventually the whole proposition untenable). Bolton may merely be attempting to bury the company in court actions - (Because the management cannot continue to run the business if they know it will run at a loss).



> But if they sell their units to this guy then, they are no longer unit holders???





He's *not* offering to Buy your shares...he just wants your vote.

Sir O


----------



## investorpaul (17 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sir Osisofliver said:


> Well that is Trevor Rowe's contention. Of course this may be accurate depending upon how heavily the first installment has been geared and what the conditions of the lending agreement are.
> 
> EG 330 Million *3 DOES NOT EQUAL 4.8 BILLION dollars.  So a significant level of gearing has to occur.  Depending upon what the lending agreement between Brisconnections and the consortium of banks that are being used to fund the difference is, will determine what level of exposure the current shareholders have. There is a question however whether this lending agreement can be challenged becuase I assume that Nick Bolton's lawyers would have told him that already, and they must think it has a chance.
> 
> ...




Sorry, must have misread the article. I guess if you are a brisconnection shareholder you take any chance you can get.

If this issue forces them to concede defeat or he is able to pull the vote off then good on him, there sure are a lot of people who would be riding on this little ray of hope.


----------



## bigdog (17 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Bolton's private company Australian Style Investments Pty Ltd is a substantial unit holder in BrisConnections, with a 12.28% stake (47,923,166 units).  He is now liable to pay $94 million as a result of his punt.

I assume that Bolton's private company has limited liability and would be wound up before parting with the $94 million.


----------



## investorpaul (17 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



bigdog said:


> Bolton's private company Australian Style Investments Pty Ltd is a substantial unit holder in BrisConnections, with a 12.28% stake (47,923,166 units).  He is now liable to pay $94 million as a result of his punt.
> 
> I assume that Bolton's private company has limited liability and would be wound up before parting with the $94 million.




Hopefully its only asset is the brisconnection shares. If not why not just buy the whole company


----------



## tigerboi (17 February 2009)

*Re:raise $1b(so far only $330m) borrow $3.8b.wtf?*

just see if i get this...briscon issue 330m shares firstly at $1 with 2x$1 instalments to follow to get them $1b?

then they borrow $3.8b for the rest.so thats a gearing of 380%...3.8 times what was raised?when i said this would go broke i thought all the money had been raised through the ipo?

sorry but what numnuts would buy a stock with this gearing?

$330m dont get you much road,so there is no way the tunnel will be built.not a chance this will go ahead with all the money owed.

the guy with 12% could be calling their bluff with intentions to sell them back(to briscon) at a monster profit.sounds like a mexican stand off to me.


----------



## Absolutely (17 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



bigdog said:


> ''BrisConnections is very concerned that unit holders may misunderstand the impact of a winding up on the liability of unit holders,'' Rowe said.




This bit makes me laugh.

Brisconnections should have been "very concerned that unit holders may misunderstand" what they were getting themselves in to by buying these shares in the first place, and taking effective measures THEN to properly inform shareholders of their potential liabilities before they incurred them. Then maybe Trevor wouldn't be in this mess.


----------



## drsmith (17 February 2009)

*Re: raise $1b(so far only $330m) borrow $3.8b.wtf?*



tigerboi said:


> the guy with 12% could be calling their bluff with intentions to sell them back(to briscon) at a monster profit.sounds like a mexican stand off to me.



If that is the case I don't fancy his chances.

About 20% of the company is currently on the block for $0.001.


----------



## bigdog (17 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

http://business.smh.com.au/business/bell-tolls-for-brisconnections-20081126-6irk.html
*Bell tolls for Brisconnections*
Scott Rochfort
November 27, 2008

BRISCONNECTIONS has played down speculation that its underwriters, Macquarie Capital Advisers and Deutsche Bank, could eventually seek to delist or buyout the hapless toll-road group, amid signs that the company's plans to raise a further $817 million from its security holders have gone off the rails.

The emergence of a second retail investor with a substantial stake in Brisconnections has fuelled expectations that Macquarie and Deutsche could end up having to fund the bulk of Brisconnections' next two instalments in April and early 2010.

On Tuesday night, the Melbourne internet domain name company Australian Style Investments, run by Nicholas Bolton, disclosed that it had taken a 12.2 per cent stake in Brisconnections for $47,643, or 0.1 cent per security. This makes Mr Bolton's company the group's largest shareholder.

Mr Bolton failed to return the Herald's calls yesterday to explain whether he understood his company was obliged to stump up an extra $95 million or $2 per security, for the next two instalments in the company.

"We would hope he would have done his homework and sought some independent advice prior to his investment," a Brisconnections spokesman said.

Mr Bolton's emergence as a substantial shareholder comes a fortnight after a Melbourne woman, Fang He, picked up a 8.26 per cent stake in the group, obliging her to cough up $65 million on top of her initial $32,000 outlay.

When it was floated in July, 88 per cent of Brisconnections was held by institutional shareholders. It is now believed that figure is hovering around 25 per cent, with the catastrophic fall in the company's first instalment from $1 to 0.1 cent allowing retail investors to buy large stakes in the company relatively cheaply.

If retail shareholders fail to stump up the cash for the next two instalments, Macquarie and Deutsche could end up owning about 70 per cent of the group.

It is speculated that, in order to avoid further embarrassment, Macquarie could seek to buy out and delist the toll-road group in partnership with the remaining institutional shareholders, the largest being the Queensland Investment Corporation.

Brisconnections, however, said "there were no plans afoot" to avoid the listing of its second instalment in April, which could involve debt collectors reminding retail investors of their obligations.

"Any talk on that is just pure speculation at this stage," a spokesman said.

Despite the huge embarrassment generated from the Brisconnections listing, one consolation for its advisers is the $86 million in underwriting fees.


----------



## tigerboi (17 February 2009)

*Re: raise $1b(so far only $330m) borrow $3.8b.wtf?*



drsmith said:


> If that is the case I don't fancy his chances.
> 
> About 20% of the company is currently on the block for $0.001.




off market off course...no buyers anyway,but reckon this guy is trying to pull a swifty as he could hold the company to ransom with his stake.

thats my take on it anyway.(buy my shares or i will pull the plug?)


----------



## White_Knight (17 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

A little bit of background.

I am a young man, early 20's with no dependents or financial liabilities. I have about 30,000 saved up in cash and share investments. I have no holding company structure though.

What would be the possible ramifications of splashing some cash on a decent  stake in Brisconnections? Looking at the market depth now there are 79million shares for sale at 0.01c, and i assume more could be obtained at that price.  

The risks of the venture are no doubt colossal but what is the potential for profit on the upside? Including banding together with other minority retail holders (eg Mr Bolton) and trying to put the squeeze on MQC and the company.


----------



## prawn_86 (17 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

White Knight,

There are some holders on this site which would probably PAY YOU to take them off your hands, plus you could buy the rest on market with your 30k.

Who knows what could happen, perhaps you should contact Mr Bolton. But ultimately if you do go through with it you should be prepared to file for bankruptcy in worst case scenario, and all the restrictions etc that go along with that (IE - hard to get a home loan etc). Also, by posting what you just have, you have admitted to knowing about it, so couldnt claim that you were unaware, if there ever is any court action.

Potential upside is not calculable, hence why the shares are trading at .001


----------



## skc (17 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



White_Knight said:


> A little bit of background.
> 
> I am a young man, early 20's with no dependents or financial liabilities. I have about 30,000 saved up in cash and share investments. I have no holding company structure though.
> 
> ...




Can you explain where this idea comes from? Where do you see a hint of potential upside? Let's say the trust unwinds, the tunnel doesn't get built, the installment receipts become wall paper and no body sues no body. Still, where is the upside for you? 

Sure, for those who have already bought in, they have some chances of not being in financial ruin. But for a new investor to jump in now? You will have to pray for that the tunnel construction crew hits oil or something before you see any upside. Use your $30K to buy a 100 inch LCD or put it on red at the casino are some of the wiser things you should consider.


----------



## tigerboi (17 February 2009)

*Re:bolton is no fool*

Well i think sorry i know this guy is a smart operator so id say hes got some good info on the underwriters chances of buying out & delisting.

$47k to this guy is a small amount to risk versus the reward.did he buy on market?

im going to email him to see what the go is?


----------



## drsmith (17 February 2009)

*Re: raise $1b(so far only $330m) borrow $3.8b.wtf?*



tigerboi said:


> off market off course...no buyers anyway,but reckon this guy is trying to pull a swifty as he could hold the company to ransom with his stake.
> 
> thats my take on it anyway.(buy my shares or i will pull the plug?)



According to the SMH he purchased the vast majority of his shares (47.6m) on market via a broker for $0.001 per share.

With 20% of the company available for the same price that would make it increasingly difficult for Bolton to get 75%+ of the vote needed to wind it up if the underwriters snapped up that 20%. There's also the question of how many units are currently held by related parties to briscon who would not vote in Bolton's favour.

The only way Bolton could potentially make money out of this would be to aquire more units for effectively nil consideration (off market) in the hope that these will be purchased off him for $0.001. Is that what you are thinking ?

I'm wondering whether he is one (or more) of the 180 sellers at $0.001 and hoping that by threatening to call a meeting to wind it up he'll get his investment back and free himself (or his company) of the instalment liability.

In either case it is indeed a mexican standoff and it will be interesting to see how it unfolds.


----------



## Sunder (17 February 2009)

*Re: bolton is no fool*



tigerboi said:


> Well i think sorry i know this guy is a smart operator so id say hes got some good info on the underwriters chances of buying out & delisting.
> 
> $47k to this guy is a small amount to risk versus the reward.did he buy on market?
> 
> im going to email him to see what the go is?




I still don't see why the underwriters would buy out.

Okay, let's say I'm 100% sure that Macquarie is going to buy up the shares. I buy 500,000 for 0.1c each

Option 1: Macquarie offers 0.1c each for them - I just lose out on the trading, Macquarie pays me $500.

Option 2: I "hold out" for a higher figure. Macquarie pays 0.2c for them making me a tidy sum

Option 3: I "hold out" for a higher figure. Macquarie doesn't make a higher offer, and I get the demand for $500,000 and don't pay. Macquarie gets the shares from me for free, and possibly a few cents on the dollar when they take me to bankruptcy court.

Which one sounds more Macquarie like to you?


----------



## investorpaul (17 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Bolton could get together with some of the institutions who want out, together they could buy the remaining 20% on market and try and take have enough ownership to cancel the structure.

I dont know if that would work? It would be incredibly risky as you could fall short by just 0.01% of the companies issued shares and not have the percentage required to force the change.

It will be interesting to see if Bolton did in fact buy the shares knowing full well of the installment and if he did to find out why


----------



## White_Knight (18 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

What if the holder was an overseas resident/citizen?

Could Macquarie still take them to bankruptcy court?


----------



## Shine (18 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> Shine and Nervous - here's a link to Dondi's lastest post - he said he was involved in the action group.
> 
> Sincerely wishing you all the b...t news re Brisconnections!  Thanks again.  :)


----------



## Enzyme (18 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



White_Knight said:


> A little bit of background.
> 
> I am a young man, early 20's with no dependents or financial liabilities. I have about 30,000 saved up in cash and share investments. I have no holding company structure though.
> 
> ...



Don't make the mistake of thinking of this as a $1 share which has lost 99.9% of its value.  It is a $3 share that has lost just 33.3% of its value.  There is a long way for this to fall yet before there is any upside.

Compare BrisCon to its cousin RiverCity.  Both are toll roads with tunnels in Brisbane.  Both were IPOd as stabled securities with installment payments.  Both suspended their dividends when thing got tough late last year.  (BCS' $00005 dividend is effectely a suspension)

But RiverCity has a few significant advantages:  It IPO'd a few years earlier.  All of the installment payments have already been made.  They are 75% of the way through their work and are on schedule - so they have a lower risk of hitting construction problems or delays.  They'll be seeing paying customers in 18 months, while BrisCon are at best three and a half years away from earning a cent.  RiverCity also do not have their major shareholder trying to wind up the company.

RiverCity are down 86%.  If we are generous and say BrisCon will do as well then the fair price for BrisCon after the two installments is around $0.42.

So the possible ramifications of investing in BrisCon now are something like this:  Invest $1,000 now and get a million shares at $0.001.  Pay $2,000,000 in the two installment payments over the next 15 months.  Then be left with the value of the investment optimistically valued at $420,000 after the second installment.  A return of -79% over 15 months if you were lucky enough to have $2 million available to avoid being bankrupted.

I suspect that you could probably find better investments.  If you particularly want to own a toll road & tunnel in Brisbane, buy RiverCity.


----------



## tigerboi (18 February 2009)

*Re:bolton is no fool*



investorpaul said:


> It will be interesting to see if Bolton did in fact buy the shares knowing full well of the installment and if he did to find out why




like i said bolton is no fool,just google him & see what you get.

he owes $93m on a project supposedly worth $4.8b,which he cant pay..sounds like a deadset ransom to me.

interesting to see what happens


----------



## alphaman (18 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I just read the AFR about the wind up. 

Funny how Trevor Rowe questioned the solvency of Australian Style - "*Based on the accountancy files, I just can't understand it.*" 

What an irony!


----------



## RodH (19 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I can understand individual traders accidentally buying this, but why did Bolton buy it? You'd think if he was running 'Australian Style Investments' he'd at least read the fine print before making a trade?


----------



## Enzyme (19 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I would like to make one suggestion for Mr Bolton.

At the EGM, before moving his windup motion he should first move a motion concerning the percentage of directors salary that must be directed to purchasing Briscon shares.  That amount is 40% of the $210k salary for the chairman, and 20% of the $110k-130k for the other directors as defined in the PDS .  Currently that money is being paid into a trust account and the shares will purchased in June, after the next instalment.  Bolton's first motion should be to change this and force all accumulated monies be used to purchase the shares IMMEDIATELY, and in future all purchases will be done in line with the Director's pay arrangements.  It Trevor Rowe gets paid fortnightly, then 40% of his salary will purchase new shares every fortnight.

This motion should only need 50% support, so it would be much easier to pass than his windup motion.

Once passed Trevor Rowe would suddenly be facing a personal liability somewhere well in excess of $30 million.  I sure he would suddenly become far more sympathetic to the plight of the shareholders that he has been threatening with debt collectors.  He claims to be acting in the best interests of unit holders, but he isn't one himself.  I think he'd have a better understanding of what the interests of unit holders are if he bacame one.

I am convinced that TR has not and is not acting in the interests of his shareholders.  Objectively speaking which would be best for the interests of the superannuation of the Queensland public servants who have their savings managed by QIC (Briscon's second biggest shareholder)?

1.  Support Bolton's motion.  Write off the $30 million or so they've already invested.  Possibly receive a fraction of that money back as the company is wound up, but don't count on it, or;  

2.  Defeat Bolton's motion.  Sink another $60 million or so of the retirement savings of ordinary Queenslanders on top of what they've already invested through the next two instalments, and then have that $60m fall to around $12.6m in fifteen months time (generously based on River City's fully paid performance).

There seems no question to me.   Like most other shareholders the interests of the Queensland public servants represented by QIC would be far better served by supporting Bolton and writing off their investment and putting their next $60 million somewhere where it will earn them money rather than lose them close to 80% of it.  Unfortunately I don't think that will happen, as Rowe chairs QIC as well.  His position as chairman of both companies has always been a conflict of interest, but now it must be untenable.  He'll get QIC to try to defeat Bolton's motion, even though it is the wrong thing to do for his QIC members. 

I do hope that Bolton and other shareholders lobby the board of QIC to make their decision in the best interests of their members and get Rowe to stand aside from the process.  It will be difficult for Bolton to succeed in getting his required 75% if QIC stand against him.


----------



## krk004 (19 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

FYI;

http://www.bcsunitholders.com.au/


----------



## krk004 (19 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

& this;

http://business.theage.com.au/business/stonewaller-nick-hard-to-pin-down-20090218-8bj5.html?page=-1

quote - _"Goldman Sachs JBWere was engaged by BrisConnections to try to find an institutional buyer for his stake."_


----------



## Prospector (19 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Oh damn, we have domain names registered and operating with his company....


----------



## investorpaul (19 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



krk004 said:


> & this;
> 
> http://business.theage.com.au/business/stonewaller-nick-hard-to-pin-down-20090218-8bj5.html?page=-1
> 
> quote - _"Goldman Sachs JBWere was engaged by BrisConnections to try to find an institutional buyer for his stake."_




The article makes it sound like he bought without knowing about the extra installments. If thats the case he must be trying to pull himself out of the hole by buying more shares and calling the meeting


----------



## Prospector (19 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



investorpaul said:


> The article makes it sound like he bought without knowing about the extra installments. If thats the case he must be trying to pull himself out of the hole by buying more shares and calling the meeting




Thats exactly the case.


----------



## Sunder (19 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



investorpaul said:


> The article makes it sound like he bought without knowing about the extra installments. If thats the case he must be trying to pull himself out of the hole by buying more shares and calling the meeting






> According to Rowe, unitholders will still be liable to pay the two further $1 instalments, even if Bolton is successful at the EGM.




His legal advice had better be totally water tight - although I suppose if you can't pay $97 million dollars, you might as well go for the full 4.8 billion (Or however much you need to get 75%), right? 

Although considering the publicity, that makes it obvious that he knows the liability, if he continues to buy, and that's his take, he may be up for criminal fraud charges instead.


----------



## Enzyme (20 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



> According to Rowe, unitholders will still be liable to pay the two further $1 instalments, even if Bolton is successful at the EGM.




Rowe's statment seems to be in conflict with his own PDS.  On page 143:



> Subject to the Corporations Act and the Listing Rules,
> BCMCL may revoke or postpone the payment of the Second
> Instalment and/or the Final Instalment and may extinguish
> in full or in part any liability of Unitholders in respect of any
> monies unpaid on the Stapled Units.


----------



## Gazzer (20 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> His legal advice had better be totally water tight - although I suppose if you can't pay $97 million dollars, you might as well go for the full 4.8 billion (Or however much you need to get 75%), right?
> 
> Although considering the publicity, that makes it obvious that he knows the liability, if he continues to buy, and that's his take, he may be up for criminal fraud charges instead.




What is criminal or fraudulent about what he is doing?


----------



## prawn_86 (20 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Gazzer said:


> What is criminal or fraudulent about what he is doing?




If he now knows about the liability, and keeps buying even though he knows he cannot afford to pay the instalments, this is probably a breach of company director trading laws.


----------



## thermalmonster (20 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I cant see that.

He may be speculating that there may be a market for them.
I mean they are at 0.001c 
he could argue that in his opinion they are going to go to 0.002c
and he wants to sell them before the call up date.

You cant stop the guy buying the shares.
If you can stop him, then there are another 100 of us that should of been stopped from buying them.


----------



## prawn_86 (20 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I think it is different buying them as part of a company. And your right he might be able to argue it was speculation, but it may prove to be negligence from a co directors perspective.

As an individual if you know about it, then you have no defence when the debt collectors come and bankrupt you, you cant try and sue saying you weren't aware (that may not be succesful anyway).

Bottom line, the laws are a bit different between co directors and individuals


----------



## Gazzer (21 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



prawn_86 said:


> It may prove to be negligence from a co directors perspective.




It is not negligence, he has a well planned strategy. It may fail and the company will be insolvent but then the only people who can complain would be his company's shareholders.


----------



## prawn_86 (21 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Gazzer said:


> It is not negligence, he has a well planned strategy. It may fail and the company will be insolvent but then the only people who can complain would be his company's shareholders.




As far as im aware you cannot trade with the intention of becoming insolvent. This would breach the company act and make the directors liable. Directors CAN be personally liable for companies actions if they breach certain rules


----------



## shaunQ (21 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



prawn_86 said:


> As far as im aware you cannot trade with the intention of becoming insolvent. This would breach the company act and make the directors liable. Directors CAN be personally liable for companies actions if they breach certain rules




But he's not. He's actively attempting to avoid insolvency. As Enzyme mentioned, the PDS explicitly states the installments can* be waived. So by calling the meeting he is taking this speculative angle, which may or may not work.


----------



## Gazzer (21 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Exactly, it is a calculated business risk and he must have accepted that at worst the company will be insolvent and at best he stands to make a lot of money.


----------



## Sunder (22 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Gazzer said:


> Exactly, it is a calculated business risk and he must have accepted that at worst the company will be insolvent and at best he stands to make a lot of money.




On the contrary, if you continue to trade a company, when you, as a director, know, or should have known, that the company cannot meet its obligations as they stand, then as a director, you can be held personally liable. 

You can say that he was "hoping" to be able to offload the shares before the installment came due, but how is that different from say, a car dealer buying another $2m of cars, "hoping" he will be able to sell the cars before the 90 day invoice came due? The director knew, or "should have known" that there was a high probability of not being able to meet obligations.


----------



## prawn_86 (22 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> On the contrary, if you continue to trade a company, when you, as a director, know, or should have known, that the company cannot meet its obligations as they stand, then as a director, you can be held personally liable.
> 
> You can say that he was "hoping" to be able to offload the shares before the installment came due, but how is that different from say, a car dealer buying another $2m of cars, "hoping" he will be able to sell the cars before the 90 day invoice came due? The director knew, or "should have known" that there was a high probability of not being able to meet obligations.




That was what my limited knowledge of the laws thought. Otherwise anyone could start a co and rack up a ****eload of debt, live it up, blow it all on personal stuff, and then not be touched.

If your operating when you know you cant meet your liabilities its a breach of director policy.

So in this case he may have been unaware when he bought the first lot, but if he continued to purchase, knowing it will amass more debt, would probably amount to negligence.


----------



## shaunQ (22 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> On the contrary, if you continue to trade a company, when you, as a director, know, or should have known, that the company cannot meet its obligations as they stand, then as a director, you can be held personally liable.




If he has personal liability, then surely he would have been liable anyway before the second purchase, so he would have even more incentive to try and do something. 

I don't think he is trying to profit in anyway, I think he is trying to save his skin, period. If jail is an option I doubt he'll do any because of the circumstances.


----------



## Gazzer (23 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> On the contrary, if you continue to trade a company, when you, as a director, know, or should have known, that the company cannot meet its obligations as they stand, then as a director, you can be held personally liable.




The company doesn't have any future obligations at the moment because it hasn't been notified by the trust that the second installment is due, which it may do on the 2nd March. The company is not insolvent.

What about BrisConnections, are they trading insolvent? They will be if they don't get the installments in, and Rowe knows there is a likelihood of a default. Should they stop works on the basis they will not be able to meet future obligations to contractors?


----------



## Enzyme (24 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Go Nick:  link



> TRUE to his word, BrisConnections' biggest shareholder, Nicholas Bolton, has begun to top up his holding in the group - and he's been getting his extra units for nothing.
> 
> A substantial shareholding notice to the Australian Securities Exchange from Mr Bolton's Australian Style Investments released yesterday, said ASI had lifted its stake from 12.21 per cent, or 47.64 million units, to 13.22 per cent or 51.51 million units.
> 
> ...



There are two things I don't get.

1.  How can Brisconnections go around saying the liability will still exist if the company is wound up when their PDS says the liability can be extinguished, and;

2.  How can a shareholder still be liable if after they've transferred their shares to ASI?  If that is the case then surely the liquidator should be able to go back to the people who sold their shares to the current holders?  Ultimately the a lot of the liability would end up back with Macquarie and the other institutions who sold out on October and November.  That doesn't seem to make sense.


----------



## Enzyme (24 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

In related news, as predicted in this thread a couple of weeks ago the "next Brisconnections" continues to unwind. 

The Multiplex Prime Property Fund (MAFCA) has now fallen to $0.002.  

There is 40 cents still to pay on these shares.  That is due in 2011, but could be brought forward if the value of their property portfolio falls.  At the current price a $1,000 investment gives you a $200,000 liability, but that will double to $400,00 when the price bottoms at $0.001.


----------



## brty (24 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I notice that the following...



> But if ASI can't pay and proves to be insolvent, the unitholders - who perhaps think they have passed their liabilities on to ASI - will probably be in for a rude shock. Their transfers will almost certainly be able to be challenged, and then essentially reversed, by a liquidator of ASI.




...is just the legal opinion of the journalist. Not what I would call a reliable source of legal information.

I cannot think of any examples where a court has unwound a transaction between 2 willing and competent parties, just because the purchaser couldn't afford it. Plenty of examples of where the seller was going bust (sell assets to wife to escape liquidator), but not the other way round.

This is more like a debt collector purchasing someones bad debt. Just because  the debt collector is unable to collect, does not mean he (or his liquidator) gets the money back from the person who sold them the debt.

I have a feeling that those in charge of the whole Brissconnect fiasco are starting to clutch at straws.

brty


----------



## Big_Daz (24 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



brty said:


> I notice that the following...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




True...but maybe the "nil" consideration might have something to do with it. My very limited legal knowledge is that you need some consideration in order to have a legal contract. But I am sure this guy will have that argument covered. Might be some arrangement like delisted.com has where they buy the shares off you (ie: consideration) then charge a fee like brokerage.


----------



## Enzyme (24 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

The Multiplex Prime Property Fund (MAFCA) have just hit $0.001.  Buyers are getting a liability 400 times bigger than their investment.  It is happening again.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (24 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Go Nick:  link
> 
> 
> There are two things I don't get.
> ...




Enzyme - Depends upon what level of gearing is already established with the first installment. Remember the company is raising $330 Million *3, which does not equal $4.8Billion dollars. The company may already have loan arrangements to 990 million - which means that the consortium of banks that supplied the finance for the deal (if the company undergoes administration) could then requeat all monies *owed* to the company to meet the loan amount.   Whether this is a valid argument or not in a wind up scenario is a question for a commercial lawyer.







> 2.  How can a shareholder still be liable if after they've transferred their shares to ASI?  If that is the case then surely the liquidator should be able to go back to the people who sold their shares to the current holders?  Ultimately the a lot of the liability would end up back with Macquarie and the other institutions who sold out on October and November.  That doesn't seem to make sense.




Beats me - I would have though a Valid off market transfer (even with a  consideration of $0) would protect the shareholder from further liability. I think the reporter is talking out his bum.

Sir O


----------



## sails (24 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I would have thought the main goal and intent for ASI would be to stay solvent.  If ASI is purchasing from the other 100 or so retail holders caught unawares, they are not knowingly selling to someone insolvent or even going to be.

Perhaps ASI isn't actually buying but relying on the votes of the others to get them all out of this mess.  But then I haven't read all the articles, so could be wrong.

It would appear that, unless some prevention is put in place, bcsca won't be the end of the carnage for unfunded and financially uneducated online traders.  Does anyone know if Commsec have a notice *before* committing to purchase MAFCA online?


----------



## finnsk (24 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> Does anyone know if Commsec have a notice *before* committing to purchase MAFCA online?



Had a look was not able to see anything on the buying page is concerned about this myself dont know when I am going to get court in one.


----------



## NiMaC (24 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I just did a dummy run on commsec and nothing has changed. There are no warnings or messages. On a quick look on MAFCA company details, I could not even find a PDS or any reference to a stapled unit.I've been following this from the start and its outrageous, even bordering on criminal intent, that these types shares are placed in the standard trading section.Obviously there is a problem with them being let loose in the everyday trader section, why doesn't the ASX do something about it? They should have halted trading at 30cents or something.Is Trevor Rowe pulling strings to manipulate the market?There should be an investigation about this. This scenario is causing much stress to a lot of people who naively took a punt on a penny dreadful, as thousands of others have done. Sure, you are prepared to loose your money that you put in, but this is a trap that could take everything with a click of the mouse button, and you haven't signed anything!The Ombudsman should investigate.  Once you check in, you can never leave! Welcome to the Hotel California!!!!


----------



## Sunder (24 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



brty said:


> I cannot think of any examples where a court has unwound a transaction between 2 willing and competent parties, just because the purchaser couldn't afford it. Plenty of examples of where the seller was going bust (sell assets to wife to escape liquidator), but not the other way round.




I'm just speculating, but I'd say it's the catch all fraud clause - If the underwriter could argue that this is not a "normal" transaction, and was conducted to defraud someone (the underwriters), then they could have the transaction negated, then sue the people who sold to ASI for the liability.

Would be very easy to persuade the court that they were not normal transactions, since transfered for nil consideration, and Bolton has proved he knows the liability.


----------



## sails (24 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> I'm just speculating, but I'd say it's the catch all fraud clause - If the underwriter could argue that this is not a "normal" transaction, and was conducted to defraud someone (the underwriters), then they could have the transaction negated, then sue the people who sold to ASI for the liability.
> 
> Would be very easy to persuade the court that they were not normal transactions, since transfered for nil consideration, and Bolton has proved he knows the liability.




Hmmm - could possibly work on the flip side that these were not normal transactions to people who were obviously never financially in a position to purchase them - especially with possibly nearly 80% of share holders caught unawares.  Possibly a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

In any case - has Bolton actually bought any more shares or is he relying on the voting power of the others?  Probably all speculation at this stage.


----------



## Steveaus25 (24 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Attention anyone caught up in this mess. 

Anna Bligh's precious Airport link (Brisconnections) has left many Australian's facing dire financial hardship. 

Anna Bligh (Queensland Premier) has called an early election. This may be the perfect opportunity for those effected to rally together and e-mail her opposition (Lawrence Springborg), stating the hardship possibly thousands of normal everday Australians are facing. 

I think Mr Springborg would take great pleasure bringing this out into the public arena in an attempt win more votes. 

http://www.springborg.com/contact/lawrence-springborg-opposition-office.html


----------



## Julia (24 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Steveaus25 said:


> Attention anyone caught up in this mess.
> 
> Anna Bligh's precious Airport link (Brisconnections) has left many Australian's facing dire financial hardship.
> 
> ...





Why would bringing it 'out into the open' (where frankly it has been for some considerable time) benefit Mr Springborg's re-election chances?

There would be no point in even commenting on the issue unless he were prepared to offer to bail out affected investors.

And why would he do that?  In offering any sort of bail out for the small percentage of the Qld population who have fallen into this trap, he would incur the outrage of the balance of voters who would seriously resent their tax dollars being spent on fixing up the error of investors who didn't read the PDS.

If I were Mr Springborg I would stay very well away from the whole issue.


----------



## Prospector (24 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> Why would bringing it 'out into the open' (where frankly it has been for some considerable time) benefit Mr Springborg's re-election chances?
> If I were Mr Springborg I would stay very well away from the whole issue.




Definitely stay away.  It is not  exactly the Government's fault that all this has happened, so why would Bligh get the blame.


----------



## tigerboi (25 February 2009)

*Re: Briscon-using indian steel*

Good thread for a crap stock,i said earlier that bolton is pulling a shifty stunt that may come off big time...or not

btw briscon are using indian steel on the project...so suffer in their jocks i hope bolton shafts them a beauty for being traitors to aussie steel...TB


----------



## sails (25 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> ...If I were Mr Springborg I would stay very well away from the whole issue.




I agree too.  Definitely not a government issue.


----------



## alphaman (25 February 2009)

*Re: Briscon-using indian steel*



tigerboi said:


> btw briscon are using indian steel on the project



Geez Aussie steel makers are that uncompetitive? Maybe I should look at shorting BSL/OST...


----------



## tigerboi (25 February 2009)

*Re: Briscon-using indian steel!national disgrace*



alphaman said:


> Geez Aussie steel makers are that uncompetitive? Maybe I should look at shorting BSL/OST...




its a national disgrace but not surprising as leightons are involved & wal king is a big supporter of scab labour...cheap materials,wait til the tunnel caves in with a 1,000 cars in it due to rubbish steel

bsl/ost next 2 quarters will be tougher than the last so they are a good short...

just gets me mad we got the best steel in the world & these mongrels import rubbish...

twiggy did it with his wagons & they wont last in our tougher conditions.


----------



## JimBob (27 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Bolton now has just under 67 million shares based on a number of gifts of parcels of shares to him for no cost.  He looks to have saved a number of people from financial ruin, will be interesting to see how it all pans out.


----------



## Sunder (27 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

:jerry

Oh this is gonna be interesting to watch. This could spell the demise of Macquarie if they're forced to pay out half the outstanding contributions, with only one person to sue for any residual after the post contribution auction.

Will be interesting to see if there is any merit to the "If you gave it to him to avoid the debt - you don't avoid the debt" argument posted above. 

Worth taking a short on Macquarie?


----------



## Julia (27 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> :Worth taking a short on Macquarie?




You can't short MQG or any other financial stock.


----------



## investorpaul (27 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> You can't short MQG or any other financial stock.




just wait until march 6


----------



## Sunder (27 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> You can't short MQG or any other financial stock.




Or just use a derivative...


----------



## Enzyme (28 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



JimBob said:


> Bolton now has just under 67 million shares based on a number of gifts of parcels of shares to him for no cost.  He looks to have saved a number of people from financial ruin, will be interesting to see how it all pans out.




I saw in the fine print of the recent ASX substantitive shareholder notices that people are paying him $1,305 each in costs for him to take their shares.


----------



## Julia (28 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

This is an excellent interview from Radio National's "The National Interest" with Professor Ramsay on the legal implications of the current situation.  He reiterates what has already been suggested, i.e. that divesting themselves of the shares does not divest investors of the liability.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2009/2503496.htm


----------



## Prospector (28 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> This is an excellent interview from Radio National's "The National Interest" with Professor Ramsay on the legal implications of the current situation.  He reiterates what has already been suggested, i.e. that divesting themselves of the shares does not divest investors of the liability.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2009/2503496.htm




If the people who have divested shares have signed them over to another entity at the time the instalment is due, and this is registered through Chess; then wouldnt the second entity be the party responsible, even where no money changed hands?


----------



## Sunder (28 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> This is an excellent interview from Radio National's "The National Interest" with Professor Ramsay on the legal implications of the current situation.  He reiterates what has already been suggested, i.e. that divesting themselves of the shares does not divest investors of the liability.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2009/2503496.htm




Nice find. A very thorough report. 

Not sure I heard of any confirmation that divesting the shares doesn't divest the liability though? Only heard that even if the Trust was shut down, the two remaining contribution are still payable. 

I think it (the divesting issue) will be an interesting test case in law. If you sell a liability to someone whom you know is intending to default on it, can you be liable for that loan? Might have implications on some of the "Liar's Loans" that were written during the property boom. 

I think I recall in the US, there were some lawsuits by lenders against brokers who issued loans to people to whom it should have been clear, that there was no prospect of ever repaying it.


----------



## Prospector (28 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> I think it (the divesting issue) will be an interesting test case in law. If you sell a liability to someone whom you know is intending to default on it, can you be liable for that loan?




But the onus would be on the 'prosecuting side' to prove that you knew!

Just listened to the interview - great find to explain the whole situation!


----------



## Sunder (28 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> If the people who have divested shares have signed them over to another entity at the time the instalment is due, and this is registered through Chess; then wouldnt the second entity be the party responsible, even where no money changed hands?




See my post above, but I think it's going to be very murky waters. 

The test questions would be:

1. Is this a normal transaction, or is it fraud.
1a. Is the buyer aware of his obligations, and;
1b. Is the buyer intending to fulfill them in good faith?

2. If this transaction is fraud, was the seller aware that they were participating in a fraudulent transaction, even if they themselves are not commiting the fraud. 

If those conditions are proven to a balance of probabilities, I'd venture a guess that a court would be willing to have the transactions reversed.


----------



## freddy2 (28 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

The prospectus can be downloaded at http://www.brisconnections.com.au/default.aspx?tabid=136

Reading this I can't see where it's clear what will happen if the trust is wound up. It certainly not clear the $2 in future payments is required to made if the trust is wound up. 

Below is from the prospectus. I am not a lawyer, but I would think it is in shareholders best interest that BrisConnections throws in the towel, let the state take over and declare bankruptcy. Sure the original $1 payment will be gone and current shareholders lose all equity but it is better than throwing good money after bad.

-----------------------
Default by BrisConnections and termination by the State Events of default by BrisConnections include:
Failure to commence or to diligently progress construction of Airport Link, the Busway or the Airport Roundabout Upgrade;
– Abandonment of Airport Link, the Busway or the Airport Roundabout Upgrade;

...

If the Project Deed is terminated by the State due to a default by BrisConnections, the State is not obliged to pay any compensation to BrisConnections.
-----------------------


----------



## Sunder (28 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> But the onus would be on the 'prosecuting side' to prove that you knew!




They would. I'm not sure how difficult that would be, but considering they PAID to have their shares taken off them, by someone who has had a lot of media attention, I don't think it's impossible.

Remember, this is a civil case at this point in time - it only needs to be proven to a balance of probability. Is more likely the seller knew, or more likely that he believed it's totally normal to pay someone to take shares off them?


----------



## freddy2 (28 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> See my post above, but I think it's going to be very murky waters.
> 
> The test questions would be:
> 
> ...




Couldn't you then also argue that selling the shares through the ASX market at 0.1c is fraud. Even putting them up for offer at 0.1c is attempted fraud. Surely the sellers know that the shares have negative value and only someone without all the information would buy. Or does the anonymity of the ASX market absolve the sellers of fraud and attempted fraud?


----------



## Prospector (28 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> They would. I'm not sure how difficult that would be, but considering they PAID to have their shares taken off them, by someone who has had a lot of media attention, I don't think it's impossible.



Did they pay?  

Anyone know how many ASF'ers were able to 'buy' their shares to Bolton?  From the sounds of silence, maybe a few.  And was that Bolton who posted that cryptic post a few weeks ago?   C'mon Joe, we need to know! :


----------



## Sunder (28 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



freddy2 said:


> Couldn't you then also argue that selling the shares through the ASX market at 0.1c is fraud. Even putting them up for offer at 0.1c is attempted fraud. Surely the sellers know that the shares have negative value and only someone without all the information would buy. Or does the anonymity of the ASX market absolve the sellers of fraud and attempted fraud?




I wouldn't say so, because there is an arms length to the transaction. When someone buys off you at market, you don't know who it is, or what their intent is. There may actually be a genuine market out there for someone who believes these will recover to over $2 once all installments are paid. 

The "Fraud" doesn't come from offloading the obligation. That can be fully legal. The "Fraud", if it were to be called such, would come from paying someone to take your obligation, knowing at the time of transaction, they intend to default to the benefit of you, and the detriment of the third party. 

It's all conjecture, and yes, I am being very "negative" about it, posting the worst case scenario. But I also think it's a possible, but perhaps not the most probable outcome.


----------



## freddy2 (28 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> I wouldn't say so, because there is an arms length to the transaction. When someone buys off you at market, you don't know who it is, or what their intent is. There may actually be a genuine market out there for someone who believes these will recover to over $2 once all installments are paid.
> 
> The "Fraud" doesn't come from offloading the obligation. That can be fully legal. The "Fraud", if it were to be called such, would come from paying someone to take your obligation, knowing at the time of transaction, they intend to default to the benefit of you, and the detriment of the third party.
> 
> It's all conjecture, and yes, I am being very "negative" about it, posting the worst case scenario. But I also think it's a possible, but perhaps not the most probable outcome.




I suppose the question is what obligation a seller has to make sure the buyer can meet future obligations. Can someone remain wilfully ignorant to avoid the "fraud" charge? If so all you have to say is "I didn't know and I didn't care if he could pay the future installments". If not why are these shares still trading on the ASX market?

IMO paying for Mr Bolton to take the shares is easy to justify in that the shares obviously have negative value. This in no way goes to show that someone knew Mr Bolton's company couldn't meet future obligations.


----------



## shaunQ (28 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

As Sunder said it will be a very interesting test case. It could probably also be argued that the payment is in itself also a transaction. It would have to be very murky grounds to go against "buyer beware" and an otherwise legal transaction. The fact there was no market available, and the company did very little to provide one meant they had no other option to "sell" there assets. Who is responsible for ensuring the other party is capable of meeting there obligations? It would be a mine field.

I would have thought they could also attempt to prove conspiracy and attack under an area of commercial law.


----------



## sails (28 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> I wouldn't say so, because there is an arms length to the transaction. When someone buys off you at market, you don't know who it is, or what their intent is. There may actually be a genuine market out there for someone who believes these will recover to over $2 once all installments are paid.
> 
> The "Fraud" doesn't come from offloading the obligation. That can be fully legal. The "Fraud", if it were to be called such, would come from paying someone to take your obligation, knowing at the time of transaction, they intend to default to the benefit of you, and the detriment of the third party.
> 
> It's all conjecture, and yes, I am being very "negative" about it, posting the worst case scenario. But I also think it's a possible, but perhaps not the most probable outcome.




I am guessing Bolton's intention would be to remain solvent and is probably hoping to achieve that with the voting power of so many retail investors.  If so, any investors selling to him would be on the understanding that his intent is to remain solvent.

If he were just planning to be the fall guy, why would he bother with the EGM?  Who knows what else he has planned to ensure he doesn't end up bankrupt.  On that basis, I would have thought it difficult to prove they had knowingly offloaded their shares illegally.

Anyway, all conjecture on my part too.  

On Julia's radio link, there was an interesting comment that only 12% of shares were originally going to be available for retail investors.  It seems absurd that this ceiling has obviously been breached many times over and nothing appears to have been done about it.


----------



## Julia (28 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



freddy2 said:


> Below is from the prospectus. I am not a lawyer, but I would think it is in shareholders best interest that BrisConnections throws in the towel, let the state take over and declare bankruptcy. Sure the original $1 payment will be gone and current shareholders lose all equity but it is better than throwing good money after bad.
> 
> -----------------------
> Default by BrisConnections and termination by the State Events of default by BrisConnections include:
> ...



The work is apparently on time and on budget so there seems little likelihood of default on the above criteria.

I don't see why the State should pick up the tab.  Isn't that why Macquarie and Deustche are the underwriters?

Would the taking up of investors' shares by Nick Bolton have been done via off market transfers?


----------



## Go Nuke (28 February 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



korrupt_1 said:


> Truly a nightmare for those that weren't aware of the $1/share installments.
> 
> Brisconnect CEO claims that it fully disclosed the installments in the PDS, their website, etc and everyone 'should' have been fully informed.
> 
> ...




Very scary thought.

What would have stopped me from logging in to Commsec and buying $2000 worth at 0.1c...how the hell would I have known about the extra installment.

Be interesting to see what comes of all that.


----------



## Shine (1 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I was just doing a google search on Brisconnections and came upon another forum where a mobile number was given and the thread was basically saying you could gift away your shares by providing your contact details / number of shares / agents commission etc to this mobile number.  I think that is just so scary.  I unfortunately still have my shares (listed for sale on etrade of course!) - but I know people are getting very very desperate to get rid of them.


----------



## shaunQ (1 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Shine said:


> I was just doing a google search on Brisconnections and came upon another forum where a mobile number was given and the thread was basically saying you could gift away your shares by providing your contact details / number of shares / agents commission etc to this mobile number.  I think that is just so scary.  I unfortunately still have my shares (listed for sale on etrade of course!) - but I know people are getting very very desperate to get rid of them.




Well if you haven't rung it, do so (possibly from a public phone?), it doesn't hurt to hear what the deal/go is. Then make an informed decision either way after maybe seeking some legal advice. Why is it scary? I guess because its almost like a black-market? But also your present situation is pretty dam scary as well. They're not going to sell themselves on eTrade so you will need to be proactive in someway.


----------



## Prospector (1 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

What would you have to lose?  If you do give them to this person, then you might absolve yourself from the second instalment.  Shares can be willed, gifted, bought and sold in 'off market' transfers, and bought online and through brokers. So, is this any different?


----------



## Macquack (1 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> What would you have to lose?  If you do give them to *this person*, then you might absolve yourself from the second instalment.  Shares can be willed, gifted, bought and sold in 'off market' transfers, and bought online and through brokers. So, is this any different?




As pointed out by Enzyme, Nicholas Bolton will take them off your hands if you give him $1305.

So far 17 people have given him 20 million odd shares and paid him an administration fee of $1305 each. So Bolton has an extra $22,185 to put towards his legal bills.

If Bolton was such a big shot he should have come up with $20,000 and paid these people $0.001 per share and made the transaction look "fair dinkum".

I reckon Bolton is an "internet gangster" who is out of his league.


----------



## freddy2 (1 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Macquack said:


> If Bolton was such a big shot he should have come up with $20,000 and paid these people $0.001 per share and made the transaction look "fair dinkum".




Actually if there was a market that represented the fair value of Brisconnections shares they would be negative - ie you would need to pay someone to take them off your hands as Mr Bolton has done. In fact I would say that Mr Bolton has not been paid enough. For example if the value after future installments is $1.50 the current price should be around $-0.50. If the ASX is going to allow such installments to trade the price should be allowed to go negative or not allow them to be traded at all.


----------



## bluecheese101 (1 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I feel sorry for people who were unaware of the payment arrangement with Brisconnections, i really do. However it just goes to show that you need to do some reseach before buying into a stock, regardless of how "cheap" the price is. 

I just checked out the Brisconnections website, and after clicking on "Investor Information" and "FAQ" i found a entire section on the requirement to pay the further installments and the Consequences if this was not fulfilled. This information was found without even looking at the Prospectus - which should also be read.


_Stapled securities in BrisConnections are partly paid securities.
There are 2 further instalments of $1.00 each per stapled security payable on 29 April 2009 and 29 January 2010 respectively.

When am I required to pay the instalments?
When purchasing stapled securities in BrisConnections, you assume a legal obligation and liability to pay instalments if you are on the register on the date when liability for payment of each instalment is determined.

The dates for payment of the instalments are 29 April 2009 and 29 January 2010. The date for determining the liability for payment of an instalment (i.e. the date on which, if you are on the register, you are liable to pay an instalment) is expected to be approximately 8 days before the date for payment of that instalment – i.e. 21 April 2009  and 21 January 2010.

Second instalment of $1.00 Final instalment of $1.00
Date when liability for payment is determined 21 April 2009 - 21 January 2010
Instalment payment date  29 April 2009 - 29 January 2010

If you are liable for an instalment on the stapled securities and do not pay the instalment, BrisConnections can take action to recover the amounts owing.

If you do not want to be liable to pay an instalment, you need to have sold your stapled securities before the date when the liability for payment of that instalment is determined.  You should be aware that there may be a limited market for BrisConnections stapled securities in the periods after the dates when liability for payment is determined, but prior to the instalment payment dates, which may affect your ability to sell your stapled securities during these periods.  Unitholders will receive further details closer to the time regarding the last dates for “call unpaid” trading in the BrisConnections stapled securities._


----------



## Largesse (1 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

"If you do not want to be liable to pay an instalment, you need to have sold your stapled securities before the date when the liability for payment of that instalment is determined."

I see no problems here with a proper/legal off-market transfer.
Bolton has at no point stated that he intends to default on the payment, rather that he intends to wind up the company before he is liable for the first installment.

As a young, relatively inexperienced market watcher, this is one of the most interesting chain of events i have been witness to


----------



## Enzyme (1 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> This is an excellent interview from Radio National's "The National Interest" with Professor Ramsay on the legal implications of the current situation.  He reiterates what has already been suggested, i.e. that divesting themselves of the shares does not divest investors of the liability.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2009/2503496.htm




Good find, and it is good to see this issue getting some attention, but that interview didn't have a fraction of the information that is in this thread.  It didn't even get across that current shareholders can't sell their shares.

For me, the key thing was hearing a professor of corporate law say that transferring the shares doesn't get rid of your liability.  I just wish he'd spent more than five seconds of a fifteen minute interview on that point, and most of that was repeating what the company had said.  While respecting his qualifications I'm still not convinced:

I don't think there is a difference in how you come to own a parcel of shares:  On market or off market is immaterial.  Either you own them on a specific date or you don't.  As far as I'm aware there isn't different classes of share ownership.  How you came to own them can't matter.  If that is right, then what is stopping the liability back tracking through each transaction back to everyone who ever owned BCS shares possibly bankrupting each in turn.  I still can't accept that.


----------



## Sunder (1 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Largesse said:


> I see no problems here with a proper/legal off-market transfer.
> Bolton has at no point stated that he intends to default on the payment, rather that he intends to wind up the company before he is liable for the first installment.




You've obviously never wound up a company before. A company cannot wind up while it still has assets or liabilities on its book. Ah, I hear you saying. Liability isn't there until the call date? You're perfectly right. But the partially paid shares are still an "asset", according to accounting standards.

If he winds up the company without thinking, all the "assets" default to him personally... Then who has to pay the installment when the call date comes?


----------



## GreatPig (1 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

By my understanding, winding up a company makes the unpaid part of any shares immediately payable, at least up to the value of any company debts. And I gather Brisconnections has a lot of debt.

It seems these are trusts though, so I don't know what the situation is there, but I would imagine it's similar.

GP


----------



## Julia (1 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Good find, and it is good to see this issue getting some attention, but that interview didn't have a fraction of the information that is in this thread.  It didn't even get across that current shareholders can't sell their shares.
> 
> For me, the key thing was hearing a professor of corporate law say that transferring the shares doesn't get rid of your liability.  I just wish he'd spent more than five seconds of a fifteen minute interview on that point, and most of that was repeating what the company had said.  While respecting his qualifications I'm still not convinced:




Enzyme:   Professor Ramsay is often in the media and seems an approachable person.   Why not email him with your question?  I'd be very surprised if you didn't receive a courteous reply.

Here is his staff profile from Uni of Melbourne.  His email link is on the right hand side of the page.

http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/index...0D0-AB80-E2BC989969E28989&username=Ian Ramsay


----------



## Prospector (1 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> For me, the key thing was hearing a professor of corporate law say that transferring the shares doesn't get rid of your liability. .




So two issues arise from that statement if correct.  What is the difference between a "transfer" and a "sale".  As long as money was exchanged, then a sale took place, it just happened to be off market.  And if that "transfer/sale" does not remove the liability to pay the next instalment, then why doesn't this also apply the people who bought the shares from a third party originally?  Using this logic, the liability remains with the original purchaser when the plan opened.


----------



## Macquack (1 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> For me, the key thing was hearing a professor of corporate law *say that transferring the shares doesn't get rid of your liability*.




Professor Ramsay does not say that. 

What he says is that if the trust is wound up, it does not relieve unit holders of their requirement (liability) to pay the further installments.


----------



## Enzyme (2 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Thanks for the correction.  You're quite right.

Brisconnections have a new ASX release:  link

That includes a page on transfers.  They say that transfers can be undone and the liability returned to whoever did the transfer.

BCS really have their investors in a bind.  They say that:

- there is no way to avoid the liability;
- winding up the company will not avoid the liability, and;
- perfectly legal transfers will be undone and the liability will get back to you;

That said, I do think Bolton has a legitimate chance.  If he takes over BCML or whatever the management trust is called, he can eliminate the liability then windup the trust.


----------



## Largesse (2 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I'm sorry but i just can't comprehend how a legal off-market transfer of the shares does NOT remove your liability for future obligations.

Off market transfer of shares is as legitimate and LEGAL as selling your shares is.

Are BCS saying that anyone who's ever owned BCS shares and on sold them liable for the 2x $1 payments?

Because that's what it's sounding like and quite frankly that absurd.

Actually, on re-read, what they are saying is that transfers CAN be undone. 
And I guess they can, but i'd think they'd need solid legal reasoning to do so because in effect they are asking for a private contract between two unrelated and independent parties to be voided.


simply awesome case-study for commercial/contract law


----------



## Prospector (2 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Largesse said:


> I'm sorry but i just can't comprehend how a legal off-market transfer of the shares does NOT remove your liability for future obligations.
> 
> Off market transfer of shares is as legitimate and LEGAL as selling your shares is




I agree, offmarket = onmarket.  We have done several ourselves; some through an inheritance and some into our Super Fund from a personal account. How can they be 'undone'?


----------



## prawn_86 (2 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Have to agree with Largesse on this one. It would be a brave lawyer/firm/company that would try and undo off-market transfers. In fact the lagal costs of chasing all the smaller transfers would probably out weigh the benefit as those smaller holders wouldnt be able to meet the liability anyway...


----------



## thermalmonster (3 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Since the whole Bolton thing appears to be out in the open My comments are as follows:

BCSCA state in their PDS that you can trade shares off market.
They have since sent intimidating letters to share holders stating they advise you not to vote to wind up the company and not to transfer your shares to avoid the debt.
I think they are in a bit of a panic!

Any off market share will be lagal. I dont know Mr Boltons Financial situation as much as BCSCA do.
They also were not intersted in mine when I bought them from COMSEC.
Nothing stopping me buying another 5million liabilty also.

BCSCA are trying their damdest to scare investors into not transfering their shares.
Ignore it.

If your not on the registry by the due date then your not liable for the installment.

However, Like sunder says they will try every legal avenue to try and reverse them..... but i doubt very much they can.
Their is nothing fraudulent about it whatso ever. I am sure Mr B has a well thought out bussiness plan.


----------



## sails (3 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> ...I am sure Mr B has a well thought out bussiness plan.




From this statement, it appears that Mr B is not conveying any intention to become insolvent.  Surely on that basis, it wouldn't be illegal to transfer shares to someone (especially someone not destitute) who is willing to take them.

All conjecture, of course


----------



## drsmith (3 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> I think they are in a bit of a panic!



That's the impression I got too. They did not mention any reference to having obtained legal advice in their opinion on the validity of off-market transfers.

I also note the intention to declare a distribution of $0.05 per share post payment of the second instalment and that a DRP will be available for this distribution. That will be interesting if the units (BCSCB) are still trading at $0.001 during the DRP pricing period.

That's not a distribution I would be banking on.


----------



## Aurum (3 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I assume that as well as the $1305 dollar admin fee a consideration (1$) was paid for the shares. I don't know Australian law but under UK law a contract without consideration is null and void. This could be how they intend to undo the transfers.

Mike.


----------



## Prospector (3 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Aurum said:


> I assume that as well as the $1305 dollar admin fee a consideration (1$) was paid for the shares. I don't know Australian law but under UK law a contract without consideration is null and void. This could be how they intend to undo the transfers.




Well, who is to going to prove or disprove there wasnt some consideration given?  Bolton would know his contract stuff, and even $1 would do it.  I dont think they can undo them and if your name is not the registered owner at 'pay date' then there is no legal obligation to pay the instalment.


----------



## Aurum (3 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> Well, who is to going to prove or disprove there wasnt some consideration given?  Bolton would know his contract stuff, and even $1 would do it.  I dont think they can undo them and if your name is not the registered owner at 'pay date' then there is no legal obligation to pay the instalment.




I just thought I'd mention it. Better to cover all bases etc.

Mike.


----------



## Prospector (3 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I think all of this is brand new territory Aurum so no-one really knows; but I cant think they can suddenly make something that has always been legal, illegal because it suits the consortium.  I guess we only have a few weeks to wait now.


----------



## Enzyme (3 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hi Thermal, it is good to hear from you again.  I think like most people here I am cheering for you and the other unitholders and hope it all works out for the best. 

Sadly, I do now believe BCS can undo the transfers.  It has taken a lot to convince me, but I have been pointed to a section of the Corporate Law Act (2001).  this link happens to be from the legal database on the Australian Taxation Office site, but googling for "1072F(3)" in Australia shows many other sources of the same information:



> 1072F(3)  [Directors may refuse to register]
> 
> The directors may refuse to register a transfer of shares in the company if:
> 
> ...




I hate to be the bearer of bad news.  I also searched the PDS and couldn't see any reference to off-market transfer of shares.  I know their website says you can, but I don't think it is in the PDS.

:-(


----------



## Prospector (3 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Hi Thermal, it is good to hear from you again.  I think like most people here I am cheering for you and the other unitholders and hope it all works out for the best.
> 
> Sadly, I do now believe BCS can undo the transfers.  It has taken a lot to convince me, but I have been pointed to a section of the Corporate Law Act (2001).  this link happens to be from the legal database on the Australian Taxation Office site, but googling for "1072F(3)" in Australia shows many other sources of the same information:
> :-(




So what happens in the case of options then; they are traded up to the date of expiry.  And this wouldnt be an ATO issue; that is a separate issue entirely and would refer to issues like CGT/losses in offmarket transfers, at a rate different to that on the open market.


----------



## Macquack (3 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Aurum said:


> I assume that as well as the $1305 dollar admin fee a consideration *(1$) was paid for the shares*. I don't know Australian law but under UK law a contract without consideration is null and void. This could be how they intend to undo the transfers.






Prospector said:


> Well, who is to going to prove or disprove there wasnt some consideration given?  Bolton would know his contract stuff, and *even $1 would do it*.




If you have a look at the ASX site, you can view copies of the "Deed of Gift of shares" used to donate the shares to Bolton. 

It clearly states " *This parcel of securities was aquired for Nil Consideration *"

Is Bolton using a cut-price lawyer?


----------



## Largesse (3 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

maybe, just maybe, Bolton want's to own a large chunk of brisconnections
i know i've always wanted to own my own bit of road... think Kramer in Seinfield


----------



## drsmith (3 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Brisconnections directors have brought out the heavy artillary.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20090303/pdf/31gdptldzzlczb.pdf

No prizes for guessing where it's being aimed.


----------



## Prospector (3 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

They have asked for an order to wind up ASI subject to provisions of the Corporations Act?    OK, off to find out how they have the right to do that.....I dont think that will one will succeed though; they are using an alternative section which suggests they dont have the confidence in one or other to succeed.


----------



## shaunQ (3 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

For those interested. Here are the sections from the act

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/ca1989172/s459.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s461.html

They may have a chance, but I think trying to stop the meeting should* be dismissed. He isn't insolvent _yet_.


----------



## quinn123 (3 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I just want to say: 1000 posts in my thread!  

I know its for the wrong reasons though.  

Good luck.


----------



## freddy2 (3 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Standard operating procedure for big companies, bankrupt the small guy with court/lawyer fees even if the lawsuits have zero chance of succeeding.

Mr Bolton could arguably ask the courts to wind up Brisconnections under the same act, in particular Sect461(1e,1f).

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 461 

 (1)  The Court may order the winding up of a company if: 

(e)  directors have acted in affairs of the company in their own interests rather than in the interests of the members as a whole, or in any other manner whatsoever that appears to be unfair or unjust to other members; or 

(f)  affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly discriminatory against, a member or members or in a manner that is contrary to the interests of the members as a whole; or


----------



## banco (3 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Hi Thermal, it is good to hear from you again.  I think like most people here I am cheering for you and the other unitholders and hope it all works out for the best.
> 
> Sadly, I do now believe BCS can undo the transfers.  It has taken a lot to convince me, but I have been pointed to a section of the Corporate Law Act (2001).  this link happens to be from the legal database on the Australian Taxation Office site, but googling for "1072F(3)" in Australia shows many other sources of the same information:
> 
> ...




"fully paid" sounds like it's referring to circumstances where you agree to buy 500 shares of X and you'll pay half now and half in 3 months and the buyer is either tardy with second payment or doesn't pay at all.  I'm not sure it's applicable to the off market transfer of the brisconnections units. Unless you are suggesting that none of the brisconnections units are "fully paid" as there are still the two installments due?


----------



## thermalmonster (4 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

There was a consideration of0.001 paid for shares.
That bit of corpperate law enzyme applies to Bolton.
That *he* can reject them if they are not full paid. nothing to do with BCSCA


----------



## Julia (4 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Further article from SMH today:

http://business.smh.com.au/business...d-rebel-20090303-8nhs.html?sssdmh=dm16.364155


----------



## Judd (4 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> There was a consideration of0.001 paid for shares.
> That bit of corpperate law enzyme applies to Bolton.
> That *he* can reject them if they are not full paid. nothing to do with BCSCA




Incorrect thermalmonster.  The directors under this piece legislation refers to BCSCA not Mr Bolton.


----------



## Prospector (4 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> There was a consideration of0.001 paid for shares.
> That bit of corpperate law enzyme applies to Bolton.
> That *he* can reject them if they are not full paid. nothing to do with BCSCA






Judd said:


> Incorrect thermalmonster.  The directors under this piece legislation refers to BCSCA not Mr Bolton.




No wonder the lawyers will be licking their lips over this!


----------



## thermalmonster (4 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Yep the only real winners will be the lawyers


----------



## Enzyme (4 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I hope you're right re the transfer Thermal.  I'm a bit out of my depth here trying to debate corporate law.



freddy2 said:


> Mr Bolton could arguably ask the courts to wind up Brisconnections under the same act, in particular Sect461(1e,1f).
> 
> CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 461
> 
> ...




It looks hard to argue with that:  _*"The Court may order the winding up of a company if...affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner that is...contrary to the interests of the members as a whole;"*_

Bankrupting at least 70% of unitholders (using the figure given in the article Julia quoted) has got to be contrary to the interests of the members as a whole.  The other 30% might not be bankrupted but are virtually guaranteed to lose all or most of the money they have to contribute.

On the face of it this would appear to be a viable plan B for unitholders if Bolton fails at the EGM.  It would still need one or more holders to cough up the cash to fund the court case, and there isn't much time.


----------



## Rastan (4 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I'm cheering for Mr Bolton and hope the retail investors dont have to put up squat and MQG have to underwrite the lot... They dumped all the stock in Oct/Nov knowing full well it was going to tank... They are a slick organisation however and I imagine their legal budget is quite a lot bigger than Mr Bolton's...


----------



## Enzyme (4 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Somebody just brought $10 worth of shares on market!!??

Invest ten dollars.  Owe twenty thousand.


----------



## Prospector (4 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I thought there was a $500 parcel minimum? Well, maybe that's only for NAB.  Someone must be fooling around, surely!


----------



## Enzyme (4 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> I thought there was a $500 parcel minimum? Well, maybe that's only for NAB.  Someone must be fooling around, surely!



In November UBS brought a single share at $0.001.  From this link in early December:



> AMID all the confusion over BrisConnections shares, trading on Wednesday baffled even the most astute market watchers. Just one BrisCons share, at 0.1 ¢, changed hands the entire day. Given that the market rounds all transactions to the closest cent, it means the day ended with zero value of shares changing hands.
> 
> So who bought the lone share? It was UBS, which bought it on market from an E*Trade account. At least the BrisConnections board can pencil in that $2 in payments as relatively safe. But just what does UBS want with one BrisCons share?
> 
> ...


----------



## Prospector (4 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> In November UBS brought a single share at $0.001.  From this link in early December:




Maybe they plan to raise mayhem at the Special meeting.  Might be worth a $2 outlay myself to be a fly on the wall, except I can only do a minimum trade of $500 which gives me a $2million liability!


----------



## drsmith (4 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> In November UBS brought a single share at $0.001.  From this link in early December:



Looking at the last 10 trades there's been a number of trades over the past few days including another for one share.

Could the underwriters be purchasing a few to try and slow Bolton's aquisition by off market transfer ?

Some person or persons at the top of the sellers heap may at least be resting a little easier.


----------



## Enzyme (4 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

How can you see the last 10 trades?  As far as I can tell E*Trade only shows the last 10 trades for the day, so I can't see previous days trade.  Is there some other way to see that info?


----------



## drsmith (4 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Westpac online broking displays the last 10 trades irrispective of the time they were made.



> Brisconnections Unit Trusts (BCSCA)
> Date Time Price ($) Quantity Value ($) Conditions
> 04-03-2009 10:05 AM $0.001 10000 $10.000 Crossed
> 03-03-2009 03:58 PM $0.001 1 $0.001
> ...




What I would really like to see is the pecking order for the sellers at $0.001 from the top down. If it's smaller holders (say, $500 worth holders) then the underwriters would could at minimal cost partially limit Bolton's aquisitions and in particular reduce the overall amount he gets from his transaction fee in association with his off-market transfers.


----------



## mikeyfinn111 (4 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> Maybe they plan to raise mayhem at the Special meeting.  Might be worth a $2 outlay myself to be a fly on the wall, except I can only do a minimum trade of $500 which gives me a $2million liability!




There is a way to get around it . Just put in 1 share and purchase price as $500.00. The system automatically purchases the share at market value (.001) and will still let you purchase that 1 share. Commsec does it anyway. Came across it by putting in the wrong purchase price for FMG, went way over and only brought like $200.00 worth.


----------



## Prospector (4 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



mikeyfinn111 said:


> There is a way to get around it . Just put in 1 share and purchase price as $500.00. The system automatically purchases the share at market value (.001) and will still let you purchase that 1 share.




Cant risk I would get my zero's mixed up! 

This is what I get on NAB:  10,000 sold/bought today:

BRISCONNCT CTG
 Code 	Last 	  	+/- 	% 	Bid 	Ask 	Open High Trades Volume 
 BCSCA 	 0.1 		0.0	0.0% 0.1 	0.1	0.1	0.1 	    1 	   10,000 	 	Normal 


Trades of BCSCA occurring on Wednesday, 4 March 2009
 Time 	     SSN 	  Price 	  Quantity 	 
 10:05 	9,831 	0.1 	10,000 	 XT XT

And the depth - boy, some are optimistic:
Price  	Quantity  	   	Number
0.1   	74,691,066 	  	192
0.2 	       124,934 	         	2
0.3 	        545,413 	  	        2
0.4 	        1,742,126 	        	2
0.6 	        720,000 	        	1
1 	        132,500 	  	        3
5 	        121,000 	  	        2

No buyers.


----------



## Big_Daz (4 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> Cant risk I would get my zero's mixed up!
> 
> This is what I get on NAB:  10,000 sold/bought today:
> 
> ...




So that would make it a $10 trade (plus brokerage)...interesting


----------



## Macquack (5 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

From the " *Explanatory Memorandum and Notice of Meeting*" in relation to a members resolution to be considered at a meeting of members of Brisconnections Investment Trust and bisconnections Holding Trust on 9 April, 2009.

"*Who pays for this meeting*?
The cost of calling and convening this Meeting as requested by Australia Style Investments is to be met by the "Responsible Entity" and ultimately unitholders as, in accordance with the Corporations Act, the "Responsible Entity" will recover these costs from the assets of BCS.

The cost of calling and convening this Meeting, taking into consideration all imposts (including but not limited to fees for professional advice, printing, mailing, security registy and venue hire) are expected to be approximately *$400,000.*"

Another four hundred grand down the drain.
That would have paid for at least half a metre of the Brisconnections Golden Carriageway.


----------



## Sunder (5 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Macquack said:


> Another four hundred grand down the drain.
> That would have paid for at least half a metre of the Brisconnections Golden Carriageway.




It does appear at this point that if he's going down, he's taking as much down as possible with him.


----------



## Enzyme (6 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

This article on the first day in court seems to think he has a way out.  There is a bit in there to digest.


----------



## prawn_86 (6 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I feel sorry for all holders caught up in it, but boy is it intersting watching from the sidelines


----------



## nomore4s (6 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

What I don't really understand is why Brisconnections haven't done more to try and resolve he problem with some of the retail shareholders caught up in this mess, they are carrying on a bit like @rses if you ask me.
ATM it is a no win situation for both parties imo - retail investor will be declared bankrupt and BC won't get the money as these shareholders will never be able to pay the debt. I realise that the shares are underwritten or whatever but someone isn't going to be paid and be out of pocket millions of dollars.

Good on Bolton imo, he has really got nothing to lose he may as well try everything possible to save as much as he can.


----------



## investorpaul (6 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Has any more info come to light on Bolton as to why he did it?

Obviously he has protected his other assets in some way, otherwise he too would face financial ruin.


----------



## clayton4115 (6 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

"I realise that the shares are underwritten or whatever but someone isn't going to be paid and be out of pocket millions of dollars."


yeah MQG have underwritten so they going to be out of pocket million of dollars. Their SP is heading to $10 and its not a good sign for MQG!


----------



## Sunder (6 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



nomore4s said:


> What I don't really understand is why Brisconnections haven't done more to try and resolve he problem with some of the retail shareholders caught up in this mess, they are carrying on a bit like @rses if you ask me.
> ATM it is a no win situation for both parties imo -




I think this is why so many people are cheering for Bolton. They see this as a lose/lose situation, and Bolton is doing something about it. It's not. It's lose/win. If the retail shareholders lose, BCSCA win by getting millions off Macquarie.

If BCSCA negotiate a settlement plan which Macquarie says is not "Best Endeavours", BCSCA doesn't get the money, and doesn't finish the road. The losers in the end are the Queensland public. 

It may be that in the privacy of his own home, Rowe is hoping Bolton will succeed, so he can take the easy path of going to Macquarie - "We sued ASI to the grave and got nothing. You're the underwriter, do something." But in public, he can do nothing except play the standover guy. 

From the article posted, it appears that the judge recognises that the business transactions are a scam - but isn't willing yet to say that they are fraudulent and criminal. 

Will be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## Macquack (6 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

From the article linked by Enzyme
*theage.com.au
Business Day*
6 March, 2009

"Bolton, who initially bought 47 million BrisConnections unit trusts for $47,000 in November, picked up $94 million of debt. He now controls 70 million shares, or 18.4 per cent of the company, *after offering several unit holders a $1305 fee to transfer shares off market into his name*."

That journo should do some research and read this ASF Thread. In which case he would have know that Bolton did not offer a "$1305 fee", but rather charged a $1305 fee to take ownership of the donated shares.


----------



## mikeyfinn111 (6 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

That journo should do some research and read this ASF Thread. In which case he would have know that Bolton did not offer a "$1305 fee", but rather charged a $1305 fee to take ownership of the donated shares.[/QUOTE]

Is there a difference?


----------



## Macquack (6 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



mikeyfinn111 said:


> That journo should do some research and read this ASF Thread. In which case he would have know that Bolton did not offer a "$1305 fee", but rather charged a $1305 fee to take ownership of the donated shares.
> 
> Is there a difference?




Probably no, bit the statement was wrong.

It gives an impression that a "consideration" was paid for the shares aquired by Bolton, when in fact the shares were donated to Bolton and the "donors" paid for that privilege.


----------



## solo6005 (6 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

What if I does pay $1.00 installment for every shares I have to BCS , and it ended up company winding-up? 

If the company winding up, what will happen to the whole project ? there are 600+ workers currently on the project i guess. 





freddy2 said:


> Standard operating procedure for big companies, bankrupt the small guy with court/lawyer fees even if the lawsuits have zero chance of succeeding.
> 
> Mr Bolton could arguably ask the courts to wind up Brisconnections under the same act, in particular Sect461(1e,1f).
> 
> ...


----------



## Enzyme (6 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



solo6005 said:


> What if I does pay $1.00 installment for every shares I have to BCS , and it ended up company winding-up?
> 
> If the company winding up, what will happen to the whole project ? there are 600+ workers currently on the project i guess.



My read would be to not pay the $1.00 instalment until after you know if BCS will be wound up.  

If Bolton wins and winds up the company the road will not be built and the workers will be out of jobs.  In the current climate I can't see a private investor stepping in to rescue the project.  If the government doesn't step in the project will be dead.


----------



## Enzyme (6 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I see that another eight investors have donated Bolton another 5 million shares:  link

Those transfers are all over a month old.


----------



## drsmith (6 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> If Bolton wins and winds up the company the road will not be built and the workers will be out of jobs.  In the current climate I can't see a private investor stepping in to rescue the project.  If the government doesn't step in the project will be dead.



If the trust is wound up what's to stop the underwriters providing the instalment cash to complete the project? They will most likely be up for most of it in any case.

That being said if the underwriters could get the Queensland Government to throw a bit (or all of it) into the tin I'm sure they wouldn't complain.


----------



## shaunQ (6 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> I see that another eight investors have donated Bolton another 5 million shares:  link
> 
> Those transfers are all over a month old.




Was just reading the Extraordinary meeting document on ASX - this paragraph caught my attention



> The market price of Units is determined by the market and is not controlled or determined by BrisConnections. Irrespective of the price set by the market, it is possible for investors to trade their Units to willing buyers on or off market, or accept an offer or other proposal should one be forthcoming. The board notes that ASI itself has proven a very active aquirer of Units. If the resolution is passed, then there will likely no value whatsoever in the Units, even though the liability to pay the next two installments of $1.00 remains, and no opportunity to trade or accept any potential proposals.




http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20090305/pdf/31gg0s3bclvd43.pdf

So. a) Its a bit deceptive implying there are willing investors on and off market. b) They try and use ASI's purchases against him c) They are explicitly saying that Unit holders can accept any deal or proposal to extinguish their ownership and liability.


----------



## Julia (6 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



drsmith said:


> If the trust is wound up what's to stop the underwriters providing the instalment cash to complete the project? They will most likely be up for most of it in any case.
> 
> That being said if the underwriters could get the Queensland Government to throw a bit (or all of it) into the tin I'm sure they wouldn't complain.



I can't see why the Qld government would pay anything when Maquarie and Deutsche have underwritten the project.   
They are busy enough finding sufficient dollars to fund their election promises at the moment.


----------



## drsmith (6 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

They wouldn't for sure but what if the situation arose where it was a choice (politically) between a half finished major road project and the instalment dollars to complete it.


----------



## Julia (6 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



drsmith said:


> They wouldn't for sure but what if the situation arose where it was a choice (politically) between a half finished major road project and the instalment dollars to complete it.



dr, that still ignores Maquarie & Deutsche's responsibility to come up with the necessary funds in terms of the underwriting agreement.  Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't see why the Qld govt would have any obligation in this mess.


----------



## drsmith (6 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I'm not saying that the QLD government has an obligation but who knows what gremlins the winding up of the trust would throw into the mix.

I was just suggesting that if the underwriters could find a way to pressure the government (either legally or politically) to chip in in the event of a winding up then I suspect they would go for it.


----------



## brty (7 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hi,

Why wouldn't Macquarie vote to wind up the company?? 
By doing so it could get them off the hook for having to underwrite the rest of the project. By voting for the continuation, all that is going to happen is a lot of small players are going to the wall and then Macquarie have to pay anyway.

Rowe may be saying anything he can against the winding up, but why would the underwriters be against it?? I'm assuming Macquarie aren't stupid enough to assume liability if the company folds in the original contracts.

This is indeed fascinating as it unfolds, and pretty much unprecedented in Australia's corporate history.

brty


----------



## Macquack (7 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



brty said:


> Why wouldn't Macquarie vote to wind up the company??




Macquarie dump all their shares, so dont have any say in the vote.


----------



## brty (7 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Macquack,



> Macquarie dump all their shares, so dont have any say in the vote.




So why wouldn't they buy back in at .001 and vote to wind up the company and save themselves $1.999 per share??

brty


----------



## Macquack (8 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



brty said:


> Macquack,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




There still is time left to do that, or maybe they are relying on Bolton to do it for them.

If Macquarie do as you suggest and buy back in just to wind up the trust, then they should be run out of town and run out of the country.


----------



## Enzyme (10 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

It might not be directly related to Brisconnections, but Nick Bolton has been in the news for other reasons unrelated to his share trading.

His internet domain name company got hacked and now the credit card details of his 60,000 customers are up for sale:  Hacker adds to Bolton's woes


----------



## Junior (10 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

From the Age:

_Santamaria told the court that Bolton had struck a put option to sell up to $77,000 of BrisConnections unit trusts at a strike price of 0.1 ¢ a unit to friend John Howard Williams of Melbourne.

The expiration date on that option is April 21 ”” eight days before the next $1 instalment is due, and Australian Style Investments is due to pay its first $70 million instalment.

"That agreement is effectively an exit strategy," Santamaria told the court. He also said the debt owed to BrisConnections would end up with a "$100 company" that was controlled by a person who had "some relationship with the defendant".

"These BrisConnections units will be sent to the bottom of Port Phillip Bay," Santamaria said. "The defendant has effectively embarked upon a scheme where he is taking on liabilities that will be transferred out of his name on April 21."

Santamaria said BrisConnections had evidence that suggested the put option with Williams was signed on November 18 last year, six days before Bolton bought 47 million units._

The fact that he struck put options BEFORE he purchased the initial tranche of units...does that indicate he knew exactly what he was doing all along?  Can anyone work out what he would stand to gain from this strategy?  Also, why would his Dad's business partner want to write this put option contract with him??  That could leave him with the liability!

This keeps getting more and more interesting.


----------



## Prospector (10 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> It might not be directly related to Brisconnections, but Nick Bolton has been in the news for other reasons unrelated to his share trading.
> 
> His internet domain name company got hacked and now the credit card details of his 60,000 customers are up for sale:  Hacker adds to Bolton's woes




Oh Bugger, they host our website and we pay by credit card direct debit!  Not through Bottle domains though, phew!


----------



## Enzyme (12 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

It just keeps getting bigger.

Macquarie have invited themselves to the court case.  See page 16 of today's Financial Review.  At the risk of simplifying the report it seems they are more on Bolton's side than against him.  They are concerned that they could be open to a class action by shareholders if Brisconnections don't act in the interests of shareholders.

This is a very much cutdown version of the Fin Review article:  http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2218399/

The full article says that Macquarie and Deutsche are concerned that Brisconnections statements that winding up the trust will not extinguish unitholders' liability is misleading.


----------



## Enzyme (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

More detail on yesterday's proceedings here:  Big guns for BrisConnections battle



> four Queen's counsels and a senior counsel on show at the Supreme Court in Melbourne, with almost 30 solicitors and juniors in tow, for the latest act of the drama starring rebel shareholder Nick Bolton....


----------



## Enzyme (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

From that article, Brisconnections have apparently engaged some dodgey character to buy 19.9% of the company.

That would only cost them roughly $76,000 and would certainly thwart Bolton at the EGM.  But how would they then find the $152 million or so that they'd need to find in the second instalment?  Perhaps they are using this dodgey guy because their intention is to have him in vote at the EGM to save their backsides, then he (or whatever company structure he sets up) defaults and the underwriters cover his shortfall.


----------



## Junior (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Check today's AFR.

'There were extensive communications on these online forums between holders in units in which they are discussing amongst themselves how they can divest themselves of their liabilities.'

Reference to this thread perhaps?


----------



## thermalmonster (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Yes, I heard that they were looking at using all the forum messages as evidence.
Also I heard they had hacked boltons e-mails???

Its certainly hotting up


----------



## prawn_86 (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Obviously im no lawyer, but i think it would be difficult for a company to be able to force forums and websites in general to give up personal details of their users, due to the privacy act etc.

Sure is interesting to watch though. How did the members here go? Did you manage to get rid of your shares?


----------



## cutz (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



prawn_86 said:


> Obviously im no lawyer, but i think it would be difficult for a company to be able to force forums and websites in general to give up personal details of their users, due to the privacy act etc.




G’Day Prawn,

I don’t think there are any details stored by ASF that can be traced back to a user. Am I wrong in thinking this?


----------



## Junior (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I'm fascinated by the whole thing....that article in the Age this morning described BrisConnect as having 4 QCs and a legal team of 30 solicitors, juniors etc. all to take down this 26 y.o. guy who accidently purchased $40k worth of stock!

The other issue is this Williams character who has vanished off the face of the earth...  I reckon he's floating around in a yacht in the middle of Port Phillip Bay somewhere.


----------



## Joe Blow (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cutz said:


> G’Day Prawn,
> 
> I don’t think there are any details stored by ASF that can be traced back to a user. Am I wrong in thinking this?




Hi Cutz,

Every post is stamped with the IP address of the author of that post, although this information is only visible to administrators and moderators. This IP address can then be traced back to the user in question via their internet service provider.

Also, IP addresses are recorded at registration.


----------



## Prospector (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Joe Blow said:


> Hi Cutz,
> 
> Every post is stamped with the IP address of the author of that post, although this information is only visible to administrators and moderators. This IP address can then be traced back to the user in question via their internet service provider.
> 
> Also, IP addresses are recorded at registration.




Unless you have a dynamic ISP?  OK Joe, how is privacy protected then, if you were asked to provide those details?  I understand the ISP can narrow down to a suburb, but where to from there?


----------



## drsmith (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> From that article, Brisconnections have apparently engaged some dodgey character to buy 19.9% of the company.



I doubt whether that would be Brisconnections or any of the underwriters as about 67 million units are for sale on the ASX at $0.001. While that's more than the $0.00001 quoted in the article the difference is still only loose change for Brisconnections and the underwriters.

As for Williams he might be sailing around Exmouth Gulf by now.


----------



## Joe Blow (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> Unless you have a dynamic ISP?  OK Joe, how is privacy protected then, if you were asked to provide those details?  I understand the ISP can narrow down to a suburb, but where to from there?




With both the time of the post and the IP address the ISP can then identify an account.

This information would not be supplied to any third party by me unless I was required to by a court order.


----------



## Shine (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



prawn_86 said:


> Sure is interesting to watch though. How did the members here go? Did you manage to get rid of your shares?




Hi Prawn_86

Unfortunately I've still got my 500,000 shares. I did get a letter from a group in Melbourne who were looking at aquiring no more than 19.9% of units (I'd say it was sent to all shareholders).  But it went to my home address and I'm away working so I didn't action it.  Mine are still listed on etrade (along with everyone elses!).


----------



## nunthewiser (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



prawn_86 said:


> Obviously im no lawyer, but i think it would be difficult for a company to be able to force forums and websites in general to give up personal details of their users, due to the privacy act etc.




a few years back in commsec chat . a poster was forced to make a public apology and threatened with legal action over a statement he made in chat regarding EMS ( eastland medical) .he posted unfactual slagging off and was actually pulled up on it .

it can happen..... dunno about here but it was a big thing in the commsec chatrooms back when it happened


LOL just thinking back now .this incident was at least 7/8/9 years back ........ hahahah i need to get out more


----------



## Trevor_S (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Joe Blow said:


> Every post is stamped with the IP address of the author of that post,




and if you post from a public area ?  I see lots of people in the library at both the libraries computers and using their notebooks plugged into an ethernet port on the libraries internet connection or from Maccas free Wi Fi etc etc

I guess in that instance it would be anonymous unless you had set up your account from home (as per below) and then proceeded to post from a public area.



Joe Blow said:


> Also, IP addresses are recorded at registration.




Even then, if you are in an occupancy with multiple others behind a router using NAT ? eg student shared accommodation or a friend that shares an ADSL2+ connection using 802.1 with two other houses that are neighbors etc


----------



## Joe Blow (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Trevor_S said:


> and if you post from a public area ?  I see lots of people in the library at both the libraries computers and using their notebooks plugged into an ethernet port on the libraries internet connection or from Maccas free Wi Fi etc etc
> 
> I guess in that instance it would be anonymous unless you had set up your account from home (as per below) and then proceeded to post from a public area.
> 
> Even then, if you are in an occupancy with multiple others behind a router using NAT ? eg student shared accommodation or a friend that shares an ADSL2+ connection using 802.1 with two other houses that are neighbors etc




Hi Trevor,

I suppose if someone was determined enough they could run from library to internet cafe posting on ASF but in reality most people don't. Most people post from work or home at least some of the time.

Additionally, when registering at ASF users are required to verify their email address by clicking a link in a verification email sent to their registration email address. We have banned most free web based emails so in most cases it would be an email address associated with an ISP, a domain name or a company or educational institution. This email address can also be used to identify people.

I just think it is very important that people be aware that there really is no anonymity, in spite of the fact that there may be the appearance of anonymity, and they should not post anything on forums such as ASF that they would not be prepared to sign their name to.


----------



## Junior (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Surely you could establish a new Hotmail account at an internet cafe, then establish a new ASF account and only write posts in public net cafes or librarys?


----------



## nunthewiser (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Junior said:


> Surely you could establish a new Hotmail account at an internet cafe, then establish a new ASF account and only write posts in public net cafes or librarys?




cant use hotmail //freemails 

believe me there would be a whole convent of rampers here if so


----------



## Enzyme (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cutz said:


> I don’t think there are any details stored by ASF that can be traced back to a user. Am I wrong in thinking this?



Just for interest, go to this site  and see what they can tell you about your ip address.  They put your address in the textbox for you, just click "look up ip address".  This information is available to any site you visit.

It is possible to browse anonymously.  Google "anon proxy".  You configure your browser to use a publicly available proxy server - which you find via google, there are plenty available.  Your browser hits the proxy server which could be in Russia or Mexico or wherever, so the proxy server sees your IP address.  The proxy then forwards your request on to the site you are browsing.  The site you are browsing sees only the IP address of the proxy, not your IP address.  This is the same approach that most large organisations use.  If you're sitting in a public library or large organisation you'll probably be using a proxy.  It is free, but using an anon proxy your browser may suffer a performance hit.

You can also use this approach to have multiple internet personas:  Configure firefox to use a proxy in Russia, IE to use a proxy in Taiwan, and Safari a proxy in Mexico.  You will appear to any site you browse as coming from a completely different location, depending which browser you use.

It is possible to track down someone using this approach to conceal their identity, but it takes some serious law enforcement action and even then it might not work.  Authorities would have to take action in the country where the proxy server is located and hope the proxy server has maintained a adequate log of its activity.


----------



## Enzyme (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Oh, could the Brisconnection legal team please pass this on to Trevor Rowe for me please:

1.	How can you act in the best interests of unit-holders when you are not one yourself?  * excuse me if I don’t count the hundred and twenty five dollar holding in your super fund as worthy of consideration;

2.	Are you acting in the best interests of unit holders?  I mean really?  Seriously?

3.	Consider when, in several months time, you are in court and being asked _were your actions in March and April in the best interests of unit holders?_  How confident are you that you can convince the court that your current actions were in the best interests of unit holders when:

a.	Many of your unit holders have been bankrupted, and;

b.	Those unit holders that could pay the instalment saw the value of their investment instantly devalue to nothing.​
4.  What benefit to unit holders from your current actions will you be able to demonstrate to the court when you come to defend the inevitable class action later this year?

5.  Will you give a public commitment that you will not seek to avoid receiving the allocated 40% of your salary to be used to purchase Brisconnections shares on-market?

Thanks


----------



## Prospector (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

There is always 10 minute mail - a proper email address that lasts long enough to confirm the address.


----------



## Enzyme (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

...and the xB browser (free download) which has anonymous web browsing built in...


----------



## TheAbyss (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Oh, could the Brisconnection legal team please pass this on to Trevor Rowe for me please:
> 
> 1.	How can you act in the best interests of unit-holders when you are not one yourself?  * excuse me if I don’t count the hundred and twenty five dollar holding in your super fund as worthy of consideration;
> 
> ...




Send it here.

Tamira Herbst
Company Secretary and General Counsel
BrisConnections
Airport Link, Northern Busway (Windsor to Kedron) 
& Airport Roundabout Upgrade Projects

BrisConnections
Level 2, 125 Kedron Park Road, Kedron QLD 4131
PO Box 412 Lutwyche QLD 4130
T: 07 3170 1909
D: 07 3170 1903
F: 07 3170 1911
M: 0407 367 368
tamira.herbst@brisconnections.com.au 
www.brisconnections.com.au


----------



## Cats (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> More detail on yesterday's proceedings here:  Big guns for BrisConnections battle



To all those  on this forum our BIG thanks........for those who are twisted into this mess  it is great to have somewhere to look for continuing information........and to find articles to refer to..........


----------



## Enzyme (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

It happened on the planes of the Serengeti in Africa.  The rains had been good that year.  Tens of thousands of animals of all shapes and sizes were slowly making their way across the plane.  Food was abundant.  A pride if lions lazed under the shade of an acacia tree, sheltering from the heat of the day.  Fat and well fed the paid no attention to the fresh and only slightly eaten wildebeest they had feasted upon a few hours earlier.  

Then in a sudden burst of activity, one of the younger males who had been absent through the morning suddenly burst out of the bushes some distance from the main group of lions.  This young male, obviously agitated and distressed was racing around frantically.  It charged up to an enormous pile of fresh elephant dung which it then ate a quickly at it possibly could.

This unusual behaviour got the attention of the other lions who lifted their heads from their slumber to look at what their young colleague was doing.

Having fully devoured the pile of elephant poo, the young lion then continued to charge madly around the plane.  Obviously still agitated, it ran up to another enormous pile of elephant poo which it devoured as quickly as the first.

This bizarre behaviour mystified the other lions, many of which got to their feet to get a better view of what was happening.

The young lion repeated his actions:  Run around frantically, find a pile of poo, and eat it.  Again and again he did this.  

One of the other lions came out of the shade and out on to the plane to speak to his friend.  “What are you doing?” he asked.  “If you are hungry why don’t eat some of that wildebeest over there instead of feasting on excrement?”

“No, no, you don’t understand” replied the still agitated young lion.  “I’ve just eaten a lawyer and I need to get the taste out of my mouth!”.

Somehow I like the idea of having this subpoened to a court case.  :fu:


----------



## Macquack (13 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Shakespeare was right
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers''

The Brisconnections fiasco now has more lawyers working on it than there are construction workers building the flaming road.

Lawyers have a role in society, however their labour and  remuneration should not render all other tangible production of goods and services as inferior.


----------



## Sunder (14 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Mr Bolton had “engaged in conduct which was unconscionable” Mr Santamaria told the court.




I totally agree with this, and I hope to see him get just punishment for it, as should anyone else who was seeking unethical, if questionably legal avenues for divesting themselves of their liability.


----------



## doctorj (14 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> I totally agree with this, and I hope to see him get just punishment for it, as should anyone else who was seeking unethical, if questionably legal avenues for divesting themselves of their liability.



It's not a liability unless you hold it at the record date...

Surely unethical is spending a significant portion of shareholder's funds sueing shareholders and holding people to terms set in a PDS they were never given before purchase and certainly never signed?

People face the threat of bankruptcy as a result of a company failing to take reasonable means to prevent individuals from incuring a wildly disproportionate liability relative to their initial investment.  To my mind, this outcome was reasonably foreseeable as soon as the share price began to plummet and the company was negligent by not doing anything, ASIC was negligent by not insuring processes were in place to ensure investors were properly informed prior to purchasing and finally ASX were negligent because they allowed this product to be traded to unsophisticated investors on their market.

A company does not exist to serve itself, but rather is ultimately run for the benefit of all shareholders.  This whole situation could and should have been avoided and is ultimately a result of poor management.


----------



## NiMaC (14 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> I totally agree with this, and I hope to see him get just punishment for it, as should anyone else who was seeking unethical, if questionably legal avenues for divesting themselves of their liability.



Oh sure!Like Brisconnections for allowing these poisonous shares out on unsuspecting mum & dad type traders and sitting by knowing full well what was going to happen and then changing the rules to suit themselves, like the gutless ASX board (including Treveor Rowe)for doing nothing about it, ASIC likewise, like Macquarrie who dumped them knowing full well what was probably going to happen.Big soleless corporate monsters who don't give a toss about anything ethical, only making enough money to keep to shareholder off their back and to keep the bloated fat cat management in clover.They don't care that there are real people with families getting torn apart from stress and worry about this scam.


----------



## nunthewiser (14 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



NiMaC said:


> Oh sure!Like Brisconnections for allowing these poisonous shares out on unsuspecting mum & dad type traders and sitting by knowing full well what was going to happen and then changing the rules to suit themselves, like the gutless ASX board (including Treveor Rowe)for doing nothing about it, ASIC likewise, like Macquarrie who dumped them knowing full well what was probably going to happen.Big soleless corporate monsters who don't give a toss about anything ethical, only making enough money to keep to shareholder off their back and to keep the bloated fat cat management in clover.They don't care that there are real people with families getting torn apart from stress and worry about this scam.




NO OFFENSE INTENDED

um..........buyer beware ? do your own research ? if its too good to be true it usually is ?

i DO have a thought for those stung by it .......... but in the same sense "i lookked i didnt buy , why did anyone else?"

good luck with it guys


----------



## sails (14 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



nunthewiser said:


> ... "i lookked i didnt buy , why did anyone else?"...




It may well depend on the broker you use.  It appears from the posts in this thread that some brokers gave no warning whatsoever of impending doom. I understand there are no educational requirements to set up an online account.  I don't think that even speaking English is a requirement.  Not every one has your bishop, Nun 




Sunder said:


> I totally agree with this, and I hope to see him get just punishment for it, as should anyone else who was seeking unethical, if questionably legal avenues for divesting themselves of their liability.




In a radio link Julia posted some time ago http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2009/2503496.htm it stated that only 12% was allocated for retail investors.  Is this so?

Sunder, in the name of ethics, how did such a large percentage (estimates suggest nearly 80%) end up in unsuspecting retail hands?


----------



## Sunder (14 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



doctorj said:


> It's not a liability unless you hold it at the record date...
> 
> Surely unethical is spending a significant portion of shareholder's funds sueing shareholders and holding people to terms set in a PDS they were never given before purchase and certainly never signed?




1.  Technically that might be true (but I still have my doubts: I've been told even a debt which hasn't fallen due should still be listed as a liability), but isn't that a bit like buying a car on credit, then telling the next buyer that there's no debt on the car, because the next repayment is not due till April?

2. You forget that the company has an ethical and contractual obligation to the State to build a road as well. 

In addition Brisconnections are not suing "real" unit holders with a real interest in a company. Brisconnections is suing a single rogue unitholder who is trying to undermine the project. They are, in fact, acting in the best interests of the majority of the unit holders, against one rogue one.


----------



## Prospector (14 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> 1.  Technically that might be true (but I still have my doubts: I've been told even a debt which hasn't fallen due should still be listed as a liability), but isn't that a bit like buying a car on credit, then telling the next buyer that there's no debt on the car, because the next repayment is not due till April?




If you buy a car and it has a loan on it, then it is the buyers problem, not the sellers!
There is no way an instalment liability remains with the seller; otherwise, in this scenario, the 'people' who bought the shares through the IPO are still responsible!   That certainly didnt happen with the Telstra float and its instalment payments, so why is this any different!

I am betting that the Rogue as you call him, is most share holders hero!


----------



## Sunder (14 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> If you buy a car and it has a loan on it, then it is the buyers problem, not the sellers!
> There is no way an instalment liability remains with the seller; otherwise, in this scenario, the 'people' who bought the shares through the IPO are still responsible!   That certainly didnt happen with the Telstra float and its instalment payments, so why is this any different!
> 
> I am betting that the Rogue as you call him, is most share holders hero!




1. Bingo! It's not any different - until some transactions became fraudulent. In the Bolton affair, any idiot can see that the transactions are not genuine, but rather a direct attempt to pass the liability off the the underwriters. 

It's about as legit as intentionally crashing an insured car. Sure the actions may look the same, but the intent is vastly different. 

2. If that were true, would he have needed to acquire more shares than absolutely necessary to call an EGM? Would he have even needed enough to call an EGM? Couldn't this "most share holders" have just called one and wound up the trust without him?


----------



## sails (14 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> ...In a radio link Julia posted some time ago http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2009/2503496.htm it stated that only 12% was allocated for retail investors.  Is this so?
> 
> Sunder, in the name of ethics, how did such a large percentage (estimates suggest nearly 80%) end up in unsuspecting retail hands?




Hey Sunder, while you are waving your righteous ethical flags around - can you please answer my question?


----------



## sails (14 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> ...2. If that were true, would he have needed to acquire more shares than absolutely necessary to call an EGM? Would he have even needed enough to call an EGM? Couldn't this "most share holders" have just called one and wound up the trust without him?




Perhaps some of these "most" shareholders are very frightened people and preferred to give their shares to someone else who was willing to take them. 

Honestly Sunder, I can never understand why you refer to them as if they have knowledge and experience on par with institutional investors.  Many of  these hapless people appear to be very frightened, and possibly financially uneducated mums and dads who are at risk of their lives and their families lives being ruined.


----------



## investedz (14 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Just been skimming through this thread.
I know its been mentioned before, but I find it amazing how this share is easily open for purchase on a regular brokerage account, which from a perspective of an ordinary share investment, has something like a 100000% loss (pay $1 for each 0.01c share purchase).

I've been trying to upgrade my trading level to level 4, to be enabled access to sell naked put options, which I don't intent to do, but instead sell naked puts against purchased puts for a credit (credit spread). 

OK now a bit of math...
If I sold a $100 strike put option worth say $3000, on a $100 share, and the next day the share price went down to $0, I would be liable for $97000 ($1000 per each $1 loss on the stock = $100000, minus the $3000 you made selling the put).  

That would mean an ROI of something like -3233% (I hope I got the math right)

Conclusion:
So access denied to a trading level, because I didn't meet a criteria, and because I could make a 'potential' loss of 3233%... compared to freely being allowed to buy a share with 'instant' liability
of 100000% initial share purchase...


----------



## cutz (14 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



investedz said:


> Just been skimming through this thread.
> I know its been mentioned before, but I find it amazing how this share is easily open for purchase on a regular brokerage account, which from a perspective of an ordinary share investment, has something like a 100000% loss (pay $1 for each 0.01c share purchase).
> 
> I've been trying to upgrade my trading level to level 4, to be enabled access to sell naked put options, which I don't intent to do, but instead sell naked puts against purchased puts for a credit (credit spread).
> ...




Hi Investedz

I see your point regarding doing the exam and filling out the appropriate paperwork for level 4 trading but I think that has more to do with broker protection against rouge clients, as far as brisconnections goes the broker is just a facilitator and does not have any other obligations (after the trade & settlement) unlike option accounts. Saying all that i do think it's wrong for that type of instrument to be trading like a share(Brisconnections that is)

Bit off topic but what’s the upshot, why were you knocked back on level 4?


----------



## Enzyme (14 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



> Why aren't lawyer jokes any good?
> 
> Lawyers don't think they are funny and nobody else thinks they are jokes.



When I get home at the end of the day I like to go through with my kids what they've done that day.  What they did at school and how they got on with this or that.  Sometimes they ask me about my day.  I might talk a little about my day and as I do web sites sometimes we'll sit at the PC and go to a site I've done and I can show them.

I wonder how that works in the households of the BrisConnections legal team:

_What did you do today daddy/wife/husband?_

_Well child/wife/husband, today I helped a bunch of rich men and a powerful company to take the life's savings of a bunch of ordinary people who made a bad investment._


----------



## drsmith (14 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



investedz said:


> Conclusion:
> So access denied to a trading level, because I didn't meet a criteria, and because I could make a 'potential' loss of 3233%... compared to freely being allowed to buy a share with 'instant' liability
> of 100000% initial share purchase...



The more this goes on the more one realises that partly paid shares (with a future financial obligation) will need to be traded in a more restrictive environment than fully paid shares, perhaps along the lines of options or futures contracts.

That could be a positive (and perhaps the only positive) legacy of Brisconnections.


----------



## sails (14 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



drsmith said:


> The more this goes on the more one realises that partly paid shares (with a future financial obligation) will need to be traded in a more restrictive environment than fully paid shares, perhaps along the lines of options or futures contracts.
> 
> That could be a positive (and perhaps the only positive) legacy of Brisconnections.




LOL :iagree: :iagree: and have suggested it a few times in this thread.  Although it's been a bit like this...:horse:


----------



## investedz (15 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cutz said:


> Bit off topic but what’s the upshot, why were you knocked back on level 4?




I aced the questionnaire 

But my assets was the problem, I opened the account as a trust, and my assets was all just cash (quite a fair amount), I guess I needed illiquid assets, eg, bricks and mortar, as collateral for a worst case scenario.

Their suggestion was to get some experience off buying and selling long options, and try applying again in about 2 or 3 months. I assume they will assess me on how well I go.


----------



## cutz (15 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



investedz said:


> I aced the questionnaire
> But my assets was the problem, I opened the account as a trust, and my assets was all just cash (quite a fair amount), I guess I needed illiquid assets, eg, bricks and mortar, as collateral for a worst case scenario.




They definitely don’t need bricks and mortar, just enough cash to meet the margins. Strangely enough they let traders carry out buy/write on level 2.

I thought you being ex optionsexpress they would have given priority treatment.


----------



## Prospector (15 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> LOL :iagree: :iagree: and have suggested it a few times in this thread.  Although it's been a bit like this...:horse:



yeah yeah, but the message is getting there....


----------



## sails (15 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> yeah yeah, but the message is getting there....




Hope so, Prospector.   




cutz said:


> ...I see your point regarding doing the exam and filling out the appropriate paperwork for level 4 trading but I think that has more to do with broker protection against rouge clients, as far as brisconnections goes the broker is just a facilitator and does not have any other obligations (after the trade & settlement) unlike option accounts. Saying all that i do think it's wrong for that type of instrument to be trading like a share(Brisconnections that is)...?




Covered calls and even most warrants pose no risk to the broker.  But we still have to say we have read the educational material and sign documents stating we fully acknowledge and understand the risks involved.  

If people don't bother to read the material and then lie on their application forms or knowingly take massive risks, it is their own fault if they get burnt.

It would be interesting to find out just how many unwitting retail bcsca holders would have been spared if basic educational material had been required prior to approval to trade instalment shares.  And if every broker was required to ensure clients were warned of impending payments before the point of sale whether by phone or online. With everything so computerized, it should not be hard to implement

The approval systems are already in place and seem to work well for derative trading - hopefully this will be extended to instalment shares in the very near future to prevent anymore unnecessary casualties...


----------



## Junior (16 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Where else can you buy a $1 million liability by clicking a button and spending $500?

You should be able to prove that you can afford to pay the future installments.  i.e. provide proof of income/assets.

I'm sure the system will be different in the future.


----------



## Sunder (16 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> Perhaps some of these "most" shareholders are very frightened people and preferred to give their shares to someone else who was willing to take them.
> 
> Honestly Sunder, I can never understand why you refer to them as if they have knowledge and experience on par with institutional investors.  Many of  these hapless people appear to be very frightened, and possibly financially uneducated mums and dads who are at risk of their lives and their families lives being ruined.




Answer to your other question: 

Retail investors bought them on the open market. Some with eyes wide open, others in ignorance. I'm not sure what other answers you're looking for? 

We've already had this argument. Does it matter that these people are uneducated? They made a mistake, and while it's sad that this mistake will kill them finacially, nobody else should be paying for it. Should Macquarie shareholders wear the pain because ignorant mums and dads failed to do due dilligence? Doesn't this just create moral hazard? Let's just gamble on penny dreadfuls with outstanding contributions... If we win, we win big. If we lose, the underwriter will wear the bill.

Is this your idea of fairness?


----------



## Prospector (16 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Should Macquarie shareholders wear the pain because ignorant mums and dads failed to do due dilligence? Doesn't this just create moral hazard? Let's just gamble on penny dreadfuls with outstanding contributions... If we win, we win big. If we lose, the underwriter will wear the bill.
> 
> Is this your idea of fairness?




This is more than a penny dreadful though.  A penny dreadful goes bust you do your dough.  You know your risk upfront.

Where else other than BCSCA can you sign up for a $2 million liability by spending just $500 and one click of a mouse.   When you sign up for a mortgage you have to get signatures here there and everywhere and have them witnessed. There are processes that the lending company have to follow through on, for consumer protection.  It is a requirement that the lender can 'prove' that THEY have done due diligence on your ability to service the loan.   How could the financial regulators even think this scheme was ok?


----------



## nomore4s (16 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

This whole mess has been poorly handled on a number of fronts imo.

But what it highlights to me is the fact there are so many people out there who are willing to bet on a stock for no good reason besides it is 0.001c. Is it any wonder scam artist continue to search the net for new victims.


----------



## thermalmonster (16 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

If Mr B gets all his share transactions reversed because buying them  or being gifted them will make him bankrupt
Then I think I will apply the same logik and get my transaction reversed off COMSEC.

Even now you can still by shares enough to Bankrupt a 3rd world country let alone a mum & dad investor!!

And Why  Trevor Rowe has Still got a Job is beyond me....

If you were a share holder that was actualy aware of the 3rd installment you would be calling for his head with a 6 month share price of 0.001

Yet the guy still has his fat cat salary a .... but doesnt seem to want to collect his shares yet...???  why is that Trev???


----------



## Macquack (16 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



thermalmonster said:


> Yet the guy still has his fat cat salary a .... but doesnt seem to want to collect his shares yet...???  why is that Trev???




Trev might argue that he is not worthy of the shares (based on BCSCA's share price performance). 

Or he has not yet decided who to donate them to.


----------



## thermalmonster (16 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Yes he is probably waiting to see what happens with Mr B before he signs his off market transfer.
If he were made have them now, perhaps he too would be voting to have the company wound up.....

He must be the only Chairman in the world not to own shares in his own company...

Im sure someone on the forum will proove me wrong though


----------



## Julia (16 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



nomore4s said:


> But what it highlights to me is the fact there are so many people out there who are willing to bet on a stock for no good reason besides it is 0.001c. Is it any wonder scam artist continue to search the net for new victims.



Yes, I've also had this thought many times when reading this thread.
Just can't get that anyone would not take a quick look at the chart and see how the price has fallen through the floor so quickly and then  start asking some more questions before buying.


----------



## investedz (16 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cutz said:


> They definitely don’t need bricks and mortar, just enough cash to meet the margins. Strangely enough they let traders carry out buy/write on level 2.
> 
> I thought you being ex optionsexpress they would have given priority treatment.




They gave free brokerage for the first month as a new member. Other than that, was treated the same as any other customer.



Prospector said:


> Where else other than BCSCA can you sign up for a $2 million liability by spending just $500 and one click of a mouse.




That could be rephrased to:
"Where else other than BCSCA can you sign up for a $2,000,500 liability with one click on a mouse."



Julia said:


> Yes, I've also had this thought many times when reading this thread.
> Just can't get that anyone would not take a quick look at the chart and see how the price has fallen through the floor so quickly and then  start asking some more questions before buying.




It is sad, but it happens. This is where statistics comes to play, where in these times of volatility, a share that is ridiculously low multiplied by the number of opportunistic people multiplied by the % of those people who are inexperienced will click on that buy button.

It's like having a manhole open on the side walk without any barriers in a busy street. The people with clear heads who watched where they were walking can easily walk around it. 

As for the busy people distracted by the share prices on their mobile phones...


----------



## Prospector (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I dont think this is about buying very cheap shares at all.  I would never have bought into Paladdin at 11c - that went to around $9.00; and all I ever thought I would lose was the initial investment.  That is the thing; by buying this share you buy into debt; Telstra instalments were advertised hugely in all the media.  There has been nothing in the media (prior to this debacle) about BCSCA in SA, and I presume most of Australia, making the buying of these shares such a unique situation that there should have been warnings splashed by online brokers all over the page!  If they do these warnings when shares simply go ex-dividend even, why not when you are buying such massive debt.  Makes no sense.


----------



## nomore4s (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> I dont think this is about buying very cheap shares at all.  I would never have bought into Paladdin at 11c - that went to around $9.00; and all I ever thought I would lose was the initial investment.  That is the thing; by buying this share you buy into debt; Telstra instalments were advertised hugely in all the media.  There has been nothing in the media (prior to this debacle) about BCSCA in SA, and I presume most of Australia, making the buying of these shares such a unique situation that there should have been warnings splashed by online brokers all over the page!  If they do these warnings when shares simply go ex-dividend even, why not when you are buying such massive debt.  Makes no sense.




Prospector, that is not really what I was saying, the installment is a totally different issue.

All I meant is there have been a lot of people buying into this share because they have seen it's price, read a bit about the company/project thought it was worth a gamble as the price couldn't fall any further and put $500 or so on it. All I was commenting on was how many people have done this.


----------



## Enzyme (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Junior said:


> Where else can you buy a $1 million liability by clicking a button and spending $500?



People have been buying Multiplex Prime Property Fund (MAFCA) and getting a $200,000 liability for a $500 investment.  That one hasn't fully blown up yet.  There are still a few misguided buyers around.

Not quite in the same league, but some buyers of the Westpac Office trust (WOTCA) have got a liability close to twice their investment.


----------



## Sunder (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> This is more than a penny dreadful though.  A penny dreadful goes bust you do your dough.  You know your risk upfront.
> 
> Where else other than BCSCA can you sign up for a $2 million liability by spending just $500 and one click of a mouse.   When you sign up for a mortgage you have to get signatures here there and everywhere and have them witnessed. There are processes that the lending company have to follow through on, for consumer protection.  It is a requirement that the lender can 'prove' that THEY have done due diligence on your ability to service the loan.   How could the financial regulators even think this scheme was ok?




So does negligence on the financial regulators part (assuming, that there is any, and I'm yet to be convinced), make it ethically okay to force the underwriter to pay for the mess, through legally questionable means?


----------



## Prospector (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> So does negligence on the financial regulators part (assuming, that there is any, and I'm yet to be convinced), make it ethically okay to force the underwriter to pay for the mess, through legally questionable means?




Well, maybe it should have been part of the underwriters risk management strategy to ensure that the Buying process ensured that only 'qualified' people (ie people who can afford the liability attached to these shares) should have had access to purchase them.  Maybe the underwriters should have stipulated in the agreement that these shares should never have been publically available; or if publically available, the purchasers should have had to jump through hoops before they could buy them.

If the underwriters had anticipated the risks better and planned for them, but didnt, then maybe it is their problem!


----------



## Junior (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> So does negligence on the financial regulators part (assuming, that there is any, and I'm yet to be convinced), make it ethically okay to force the underwriter to pay for the mess, through legally questionable means?




As it stands the underwriter won't have a choice.  Most of these retail investors can probably only afford to pay <10% of the liability.  The trust should be wound up and no one should have to pay.  The road project should be terminated unless state or federal government wants to fund it.


----------



## Sunder (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> Well, maybe it should have been part of the underwriters risk management strategy to ensure that the Buying process ensured that only 'qualified' people (ie people who can afford the liability attached to these shares) should have had access to purchase them.  Maybe the underwriters should have stipulated in the agreement that these shares should never have been publically available; or if publically available, the purchasers should have had to jump through hoops before they could buy them.
> 
> If the underwriters had anticipated the risks better and planned for them, but didnt, then maybe it is their problem!




That still doesn't answer the question. The emphasis should have been *through legally questionable means* Of course the underwriter will end up paying, but in my book, two wrongs don't make a right. Does it in yours?


----------



## Prospector (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> That still doesn't answer the question. The emphasis should have been *through legally questionable means* Of course the underwriter will end up paying, but in my book, two wrongs don't make a right. Does it in yours?




Are you talking about the recent developments (Bolton) or the situations that initiated the recent developments (the ease with which the shares were bought in the first place?)

A moot point anyway; the underwriters, in order to minimise their risk, should have ensured that only qualified people had access to buy these shares.  Had they ensured that, then Bolton would never have been in the scene.

Hey Sunder, two wrongs dont make a right?  Arent you the one who said previously that life is rarely fair?


----------



## sails (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Answer to your other question:
> 
> Retail investors bought them on the open market. Some with eyes wide open, others in ignorance. I'm not sure what other answers you're looking for?




Were there actually any small investors that bought online with their eyes wide open – knowing the massive debt they were taking on?    Not talking about any subsequent off market transfers here either.



> We've already had this argument. Does it matter that these people are uneducated? They made a mistake, and while it's sad that this mistake will kill them finacially, nobody else should be paying for it.




Personally, I think education does matter when it comes to helping prevent people’s lives being potentially ruined with such unprecedented and extraordinary magnitude …



> Should Macquarie shareholders wear the pain because *ignorant* mums and dads failed to do due dilligence?




Wow, we can agree on something!  Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary states ignorance is:
*"1 a: destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society> ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b: resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>2: UNAWARE, UNINFORMED" * 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorant

No, I’m not talking about who should pay. I’m talking more about who I think shouldn’t be allowed access to these sorts of shares in the first place.  Weren’t the underwriters fully aware of the risks up front before putting their shareholders funds at risk?  What if there had been better prevention/protection in place and these Mums and Dads didn't have access to them in the first place, wouldn’t the underwriters still own these shares and be fully liable anyway?  There didn’t appear to be anyone else "in the know" wanting these shares – is that so?



> Doesn't this just create moral hazard?




Do you think it could be a potentially a bigger moral hazard if those who are financially better educated and “in the know” do nothing to help prevent uneducated people from falling into such a potentially disastrous situation? 



> Let's just gamble on penny dreadfuls with outstanding contributions...




LOL Sunder, is your statement above (underline is mine) designed to stir?  Do you really think they knew about the outstanding contributions to even have such a thought?  And you clearly agree they were "ignorant" aka "uneducated".  If they had been fully aware, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.  This thread would probably not even exist.



> If we win, we win big.




For normal shares, a low share price means a secure stop loss.  If it goes bust, the initial investment is lost.  I would appear that they may have felt fairly safe with a secure stop and an otherwise reasonable risk to reward.



> If we lose, the underwriter will wear the bill.




You admit above these people were “ignorant” aka “uneducated”.  So how could they possibly be thinking about the underwriters when they didn’t know (a) it was a contributing share, and (b) that underwriters even existed?



> Is this your idea of fairness?




My idea of fairness is to make it more difficult for unsuitably funded people to get their mouse hovering over these types of “impending doom” shares.  I think some warning and perhaps some minimal required education before the point of sale would be fair, don’t you think?    Prevention is usually better than cure.  I have gone on about this for so long now, I thought my idea of fairness was pretty clear...


----------



## sails (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> That still doesn't answer the question. The emphasis should have been *through legally questionable means* Of course the underwriter will end up paying, but in my book, two wrongs don't make a right. Does it in yours?




Agree that two wrongs don't make a right, but why take the little "ignorant" guys down for tiddlywinks?

So if there are two wrongs - where did the first "wrong" happen?  

You seem to get a bit upset in some of your posts, Sunder. Other than holding shares, do you have some vested financial interest in this?


----------



## bigdog (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Courier Mail reports

*Largest unitholder and BrisConnections to front court*

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25195570-3122,00.html
Kerrie Sinclair

March 16, 2009 11:00pm

TOLL-road company BrisConnections is taking its fight with its largest unitholder, Australian Style Investments, to the Supreme Court in Victoria.  

Australian Style Investments, controlled by young Melbourne businessman Nicholas Bolton, has an 18.14 per cent stake in BrisConnections and wants it wound up on the view that would yield unitholders more value than keeping it going.

BrisConnections, in retaliation, is seeking a Victorian Supreme Court order to kill off Mr Bolton's Australian Style Investments.

BrisConnections also wants the court to declare invalid Mr Bolton's request for a unitholder vote to wind up the company which has a 45-year contract from the Queensland Government to fund, build and operate Brisbane's $4.8 billion Airport Link.

Mr Bolton and many retail investors bought up BrisConnections units late last year as its units plunged from a $1 July float price to just 0.1c, the lowest tradeable level possible on the Australian stock exchange.

Some investors say they were unaware the units were partly paid and that they would be legally required to pay two more instalments of $1 a unit.

Justice Ross Robson is to start taking evidence today in the BrisConnections counter action against Australian Style Investments.

BrisConnections and ASI are the only formally listed parties in the case but Macquarie Capital Partners and Deutsche Bank - BrisConnections' two underwriters - have been permitted representation.

Macquarie and Deutsche will have to help meet any shortfall from the next instalment due from unitholders on April 29.

As requested by Mr Bolton, BrisConnections has organised an April 9 shareholder meeting at its northern Brisbane headquarters to vote on a proposed wind-up. But BrisConnections said it would ask Justice Robson to rule that meeting should not proceed. Mr Bolton's wind-up proposal would have to be backed by unitholders controlling 75 per cent of votes.

BrisConnections says unitholders will be financially worse off if they wind up BrisCon. It says a wind-up would "in no way extinguish unitholders' obligation to pay the outstanding instalments".


----------



## Julia (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Junior said:


> The trust should be wound up and no one should have to pay.  The road project should be terminated unless state or federal government wants to fund it.



With respect, that's a simplistic and wholly unsuitable suggestion.
The project is apparently much needed in Brisbane, the work is well under way and going to time and budget.   I don't see why the tax payers of either Qld or nationally should have to pick up the tab for this.


----------



## XandraX (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

It certainly is well under way...they've demolished massive amounts of houses and shops to make way for this. If work stopped now there would be a massive uproar from pretty much everyone.


----------



## Junior (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> With respect, that's a simplistic and wholly unsuitable suggestion.
> The project is apparently much needed in Brisbane, the work is well under way and going to time and budget.   I don't see why the tax payers of either Qld or nationally should have to pick up the tab for this.




Is it worth potentially bankrupting hundreds of individuals in order for it to proceed?


----------



## Knobby22 (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Junior said:


> Is it worth potentially bankrupting hundreds of individuals in order for it to proceed?




MacQuarie will have to pay up, it was their design, they got paid millions for the risk, they deserve no way out.

Re: bankrupting 100s of individuals, I am sure they could come to an arrangement with Macquarie to both their mutual benefit. If some are bankrupted, at least they went in themselves, better than Storm clients.


----------



## Sunder (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> Agree that two wrongs don't make a right, but why take the little "ignorant" guys down for tiddlywinks?
> 
> So if there are two wrongs - where did the first "wrong" happen?
> 
> You seem to get a bit upset in some of your posts, Sunder. Other than holding shares, do you have some vested financial interest in this?




You're reading way too much into this. I don't hold BCSCA, MQG, or whatever the code is for Deutch Bank, and I don't get upset over this. I do use hyperbole and similies/metaphors a lot, which makes it colourful language.

Reading your responses above, I get the feeling you can't detect written change between sarcasm, hyperbole, hypotheticals, and things that I mean literally. Yes, some of my comments are leveraging off yours and do not reflect my views.

For example, you think that the first wrong was that retail investors COULD buy these shares. I don't believe there was a first wrong: I'm leveraging off your belief that a wrong has occured, and you believe this justifies commiting a second wrong to right it. I do this to point out the flaws in your logic, or ethics, or whatever it is.


----------



## sails (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> You're reading way too much into this. I don't hold BCSCA, MQG, or whatever the code is for Deutch Bank, and I don't get upset over this. I do use hyperbole and similies/metaphors a lot, which makes it colourful language.
> 
> Reading your responses above, I get the feeling you can't detect written change between sarcasm, hyperbole, hypotheticals, and things that I mean literally. Yes, some of my comments are leveraging off yours and do not reflect my views.




Your posts are colourful??? 



> For example, you think that the first wrong was that retail investors COULD buy these shares. I don't believe there was a first wrong: I'm leveraging off your belief that a wrong has occured, and you believe this justifies commiting a second wrong to right it. I do this to point out the flaws in your logic, or ethics, or whatever it is.




LOL, it wasn't my post that you were replying to when you mentioned the two wrongs thing - I simply asked where you thought the first wrong had occoured...

Anyway, how about a little compassion then - basic Sunday school stuff?


----------



## Sunder (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> LOL, it wasn't my post that you were replying to when you mentioned the two wrongs thing
> 
> Anyway, how about a little compassion then - basic Sunday school stuff?




Principle remains - You, with several other posters, believe a great wrong has been done by allowing retail investors to buy those shares. The reply was in reference to that. 

Compassion to who? 

1. The man facilitating fraud
2. The people acting fraudulently by taking up the offer
3. The Macquarie shareholders who are going to have to stump up?
4. The poor people who are doing the right thing by holding onto their shares (or listing them on the open market, trying to sell to genuine buyers), hoping they can work out something with Brisconnections?

Two of those deserve sympathy, but we're not talking about those are we? It seems most people are cheering on Robin Hood.


----------



## freddy2 (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> trying to sell to *genuine buyers*




:lol:

Don't you mean ignorant suckers.


----------



## sails (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Principle remains - You, with several other posters, believe a great wrong has been done by allowing retail investors to buy those shares. The reply was in reference to that.



I have previously been suggesting better prevention and education - not "a great wrong has been done"...   




> Compassion to who?
> 
> 1. The man facilitating fraud
> 2. The people acting fraudulently by taking up the offer
> ...


----------



## drsmith (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Irrispective of where individual opinion stands regarding compassion, buyer beware and the motives of individuals on the register (Bolton), the fundamental problem is that this is a leveraged investment without the need for individual investors to jump through the usual hoops to access leveraging.

While it is the height of stupidity for anyone to be buying this in it's present state, it is also true that the financial structure of BCS is what has led it to it's present problems and for that the promoters need to some responsibility.

I wonder to what extent the concept of partly paid units survives this debacle.


----------



## Enzyme (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> In the Bolton affair, any idiot can see that the transactions are not genuine, but rather a direct attempt to pass the liability off the the underwriters.



But that is not obvious at all.  Not even to the lawyers acting for the underwriters.

The AFR reported last week that Macquarie and Deutsche were joining the current court action because they were concerned that BrisConnections statements that winding up the trusts would not extinguish the liability were misleading.  That could leave the underwriters liable in a future class action.

The Deutsche lawyer said words to the effect of "Mr Bolton says winding up the trusts will extinguish the liability.  BrisConnections says it will not.  We believe that neither is correct and the truth is somewhere in between." (that is my recollection of an article I read last week, not an actual direct quote from it)

The Deutsche lawyer guy is asking the court to rule on this point.  That should be the one of the outcomes of the current action.  It is possible that the court may rule that Bolton's actions in winding up the trusts may relieve the underwriters of their obligation, in full or in part.


----------



## Julia (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Junior said:


> Is it worth potentially bankrupting hundreds of individuals in order for it to proceed?



Can you explain why you think it would be appropriate for the taxpayers to be saddled with the cost when the project has been underwritten by Maquarie and Deutsche?

And, whilst I agree that in future more documentation should happen before buying partly paid shares, let's remember that E-trade and NAB clearly stated on the final buy screen that there were two further payments to be made, apparently just Comsec failing to do this.   This seems to be getting a bit lost in the current argument.


----------



## sails (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> Can you explain why you think it would be appropriate for the taxpayers to be saddled with the cost when the project has been underwritten by Maquarie and Deutsche?
> 
> And, whilst I agree that in future more documentation should happen before buying partly paid shares, let's remember that E-trade and NAB clearly stated on the final buy screen that there were two further payments to be made, apparently just Comsec failing to do this.   This seems to be getting a bit lost in the current argument.




Julia, I totally agree it should not be the Qld govt's problem.  If they have put it out to the private sector, they shouldn't have to pick up the pieces.  I would imagine they will be expecting the private sector to sort this mess out.

Will leave Junior to give his reasons why he thinks Qld taxpayers should pick up the pieces...

WebIress also displays "$1 pd $2 unpd".  However, from the the posts in this thread, it appears there may have been quite a few Commsec clients caught out.


----------



## Junior (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> Can you explain why you think it would be appropriate for the taxpayers to be saddled with the cost when the project has been underwritten by Maquarie and Deutsche?
> 
> And, whilst I agree that in future more documentation should happen before buying partly paid shares, let's remember that E-trade and NAB clearly stated on the final buy screen that there were two further payments to be made, apparently just Comsec failing to do this.   This seems to be getting a bit lost in the current argument.




I'm not saying that taxpayers should have to pick up the pieces.  I just think that, given the circumstances, a large number of individual investors should not be made bankrupt because they unknowingly took on a ridiculous liability which they never had any chance of being able to pay.  If this toll road is actually expected to be profitable, then maybe the Government should consider taking a stake.


----------



## Enzyme (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

What should happen is that Brisconnections act in the interests of their unit holders.  That is their obligation.

They should wind up the trusts now.  That would mean:

1.  Many of their unit holders will be spared bunkruptcy;
2.  Those unit holders that would be able to pay will spared seeing their additional investments devalue to nothing.
3.  The underwriters will be spared near $760 million in liabilities.  (maybe - we'll see what the court says)
4.  There may be some outstanding liabilities.  Some creditors may not be paid in full.  There will be a mess to sort out and possibly an administrator or similar appointed to sort things out as best they can as is done with other failed companies.
5.  1100 people will lose their jobs.
6.  There will be part of an unfinished road in Brisbane with no money to finish it.

The issue of what to do with the unfinished road then becomes then becomes the Government's problem, whether they like it or not.  The government should then act in the best interests of all Queenslanders.  That is their obligation.  The government can then either:

1.  Try to get another company to come in and finish the job.  BrisConnections won a concession to operate the road from the government.  There were other interested parties.  See if one of those will be preparred to step in and finish the job.  The new company would have an economic advantage over BrisConnections in that now close to $600 million has already been spent on the project ($380 million from Brisconnections shareholders so far, and $200+ million plus from the government).  That money and the work done with it so far would be a free head start for a new company coming in and should give them an advantage over Brisconnections.  They might be able to simply pick up the contracts with current builders, or;

2.  If the economics of the project are so bad that no company can be found to come in and pick up and run with the project the government then has a choice.  They can either:
a.  decide that the project is of such importance and value to the people of Queensland that they should build, pay for, and operate it themselves, or

b.  decide that the project is just not worth it.  There is no sence throwing good money after bad.  Clean up the mess as best as possible and forget the whole thing.​
The interests of the BrisConnections are different to those of the Governent and those of the underwriters.  We shouldn't get them mixed up.


----------



## Macquack (17 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> The new company would have an economic advantage over BrisConnections in that now close to $600 million has already been spent on the project (*$380 million from Brisconnections shareholders so far*, and $200+ million plus from the government).




That $380 million has not been spent on the road in a tangible form.

For a start, Macquarie scammed $110 million for organising the float.


----------



## Enzyme (18 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

You are quite right there MacQuack.

Here  is a report on yesterday's court proceedings.  Now the lawyers for the Queensland government are expected to join this lawyer love in.

How do you get a bunch of lawyers to smile for a group photo?

Get them to say 'fees'.


----------



## Shine (18 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

And the plot thickens yet again.

Now there is another company (this one is based in Sydney) seeking to acquire 19.9% of BrisConnections units.  Its Corporate Advisor goes back to the Alan Bond days.


----------



## Mc Gusto (18 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> You are quite right there MacQuack.
> 
> Here  is a report on yesterday's court proceedings.  Now the lawyers for the Queensland government are expected to join this lawyer love in.
> 
> ...




Now it makes some sense...that is the method behind bol;ton's 'madness' but could the honestly expect that unti holders may see 50c return p/unit. that would make bolton a very wealthy man.

I used to have quite close ties to bolton and williams they are very sharp. thought there may be somethimg more to this.


----------



## Sunder (18 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> I have previously been suggesting better prevention and education - not "a great wrong has been done"...




Still no answer?


----------



## Sunder (18 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> But that is not obvious at all.  Not even to the lawyers acting for the underwriters.




Even the Judge said it was clearly a "Bottom of Phillip Bay" Scheme. (Or whichever harbour it was he chose). How much more obvious did you want to make it? It's not about whether winding down the trust will escape liability - it's about Bolton buying up shares and then having an option on them for a $100  company that was until recently in a non-trading status.


----------



## Sunder (18 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Mc Gusto said:


> Now it makes some sense...that is the method behind bol;ton's 'madness' but could the honestly expect that unti holders may see 50c return p/unit. that would make bolton a very wealthy man.
> 
> I used to have quite close ties to bolton and williams they are very sharp. thought there may be somethimg more to this.




I doubt that was his strategy all along, he's just using that as an argument to put some "legitimacy" to his stumble-upon strategy. Besides, Bolton won't get rich, Williams will, having the options on those shares 

In all reality, if he does shut down the trust, you can bet Brisconnections will probably be sued by every contractor they've engaged so far, as well as the Queensland government, leaving nothing in the trust to return to unit hodlers. 

And if Bolton and Williams are so sharp, how did ASI get into this mess in the first place?


----------



## sails (18 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Still no answer?




Answer to what?


----------



## mikeyfinn111 (18 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

It appears some of the posts from this forum was admitted to the court documents yesterday in favour of us unitholders so thankyou for everyones contribution of thoughts and ideas of the way this should be handled. Keep up the good work


----------



## prawn_86 (18 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



mikeyfinn111 said:


> It appears some of the posts from this forum was admitted to the court documents yesterday in favour of us unitholders so thankyou for everyones contribution of thoughts and ideas of the way this should be handled. Keep up the good work




Got a link or reference to that? It would be interested to know exactly what they showed.

How did you find out?


----------



## mikeyfinn111 (18 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



prawn_86 said:


> Got a link or reference to that? It would be interested to know exactly what they showed.
> 
> How did you find out?




I found out internally by someone who was in the courts yesterday. He hasnt disclosed exactly what posts were presented but they were definately acknowledged and admitted into court documents. Im not trying to be a media outlet here with an exclusive just wanted to say keep up the good work in bringing ideas to the table as they are helping (if only slightly) to the proceedings. I have read numerous posts on here with info regarding legal wordings and details of quite credible legal avenues that Nick might have, and BCS doesnt. Maybe they are taking these into account.


----------



## Prospector (18 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Anything to do with different screen shots from different online trading providers perhaps?


----------



## Sunder (18 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> Answer to what?




To who exactly it is we should be having compassion/sympathy on. It seems most people here have misplaced sympathy for Robin Hood, and those willing to take the spoils from him.


----------



## thermalmonster (18 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Oh, Sunder !!


----------



## sails (18 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> To who exactly it is we should be having compassion/sympathy on. It seems most people here have misplaced sympathy for Robin Hood, and those willing to take the spoils from him.




Are you referring to Bolton?  Anyway, it really doesn't matter as this is an open forum and you are entitled to your views.

But why are you generalizing by saying "most" people when you really couldn't possibly know what "most" people on ASF think?  There's over 24,500 members plus possibly many more times that in lurkers all with many diverse views...

IMO, where and how we show compassion is an individual thing...


----------



## Julia (18 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Junior said:


> I'm not saying that taxpayers should have to pick up the pieces.  I just think that, given the circumstances, a large number of individual investors should not be made bankrupt because they unknowingly took on a ridiculous liability which they never had any chance of being able to pay.  If this toll road is actually expected to be profitable, then maybe the Government should consider taking a stake.



Your first and last sentences are in direct opposition.


----------



## Julia (18 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I reckon this thread would be perfect fodder for an Ethics lecture.
So many all convinced their particular morality (or lack of)  is the right one.


----------



## Enzyme (19 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

A couple of reports of yesterday's court proceedings:

Bolton's plan for BrisConnections

ANZ faces $322m loss if BrisConnections defaults


----------



## Enzyme (19 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

This report has a couple of things in it that the others didn't have:

Toll group's legal battle


----------



## Junior (19 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> Your first and last sentences are in direct opposition.




I'm not saying taxpayers _should have to _foot the bill.  I'm saying that if the Project turns out to be profitable then maybe the Government will benefit from taking over.


----------



## Junior (19 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

So....apparently Bolton knew exactly what he was doing and actually had a carefully prepared strategy which involved a 'takeover' of the trust.  This story has so many twists and turns.  When it's all over someone should make a movie about it.


----------



## sails (19 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Junior said:


> So....apparently Bolton knew exactly what he was doing and actually had a carefully prepared strategy which involved a 'takeover' of the trust.  This story has so many twists and turns.  When it's all over someone should make a movie about it.




It would probably make a good movie too.  It's interesting enough just watching it slowly unfold...

With new information in the links above, it appears that Bolton is in a different league to the Mums and Dads that seem to have been genuinely caught.  It looks like he had an objective all along and I guess as a major share holder he would have some rights.  Whether it is morally or legally wrong, I guess only time will tell.


----------



## Enzyme (19 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

There are some bizarre events happening away from the courts at the moment as well.

Firstly, we had the entry of a new player.  James Byrns.  One time bankruptcy adviser to Alan Bond and currently banned from managing companies.  A penalty imposed for five years in 2006.  Seemingly a bit of a shadey character.

He has written to all BrisConnections shareholders offering to buy their shares for $0.00001 each, up to a limit of 20% of all shares on issue.  That price is 1/100th of their current listed price of $0.001.  He's not actually buying them in his own name, but for some nothing company so presumably he is not personally liable:  link  His approach has been confirmed by posts from unitholders on here.  BrisConnections don't like it and have written to all shareholders warning them off :  ASX release

But now another mystery buyer has emerged.  So far only known by his username 'raygt2004' (or Ray) on a different forum, he is making a very similar offer to that of James Byrne:  To buy up to 80 million BCSCA shares at $0.00001, for a total maximum outlay of $800.  Link

Does anyone recall the mythical creature known as the hydra?  It had a dragon like head with a long neck.  If you cut off its head, two more would grow back in its place.  If you cut off one of those, another two more would grow to replace it, and so on.  That is what BrisConnections are fighting now.  They might cut off ASI's head, but already another two have grown to replace it.  These annoying little companies can spring up faster than a football team of QC's can hope to strike them down.

BrisConnections needs to change strategy to defeat this hydra.  They should try the revolutionary approach of ACTING IN THE INTERESTS OF THEIR SHAREHOLDERS!  Stop giving their unit holders reason to give away their investments.  Stop threatening them and taking them to court.  Do what is best for them, and if that means winding up the trusts and abandoning the project then so be it.


----------



## investorpaul (19 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

So each of them:

Bolton
Byrns
Ray

will each have approx 20% give or take a bit, minus any institutions holding how much would that leave in the hands or retail investors?


----------



## Enzyme (19 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Well, so far there is no indication Byrne or Ray have any shares at all.  No ASX substantial shareholder announcement.  But I'd sell to them if I held BCS, and I expect many actual holders would as well.

If they did all get to their target 20% then there would be 60% held between them.  QIC are the institutional (chaired by Trevor Rower, so we know which way they will vote) hold 10%.  That would leave roughly 30% in the hands of retail investors.

'Ray' says selling shares to him is better than gifting as people did for Bolton.  The transaction is more likely to stand up to a challenge, and the seller will be able to claim a capital loss on their tax.


----------



## Absolutely (19 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

With all this going on you would have to think that the contractor, Thiess John Holland, at some point is going to have to consiider stopping work.

It would appear that Macquarie and Deutche Banks are going to take Bolton's side as they see it as a way out of avoiding paying the shortfall in the collection of the coming installments.

So if successful, where is the money going to come from for work that is underway now? Surely a question the contractor must be asking.

I'm close to the project on the ground with hope of winning some work on the project shortly. Looking for any signs that things might be starting to look shaky.


----------



## Sunder (19 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Junior said:


> So....apparently Bolton knew exactly what he was doing






sails said:


> It looks like he had an objective all along and I guess as a major share holder he would have some rights.  Whether it is morally or legally wrong, I guess only time will tell.




I'm curious as to what you think this strategy is, and how it benefits Bolton. Does he really think that after paying off penalty fees to the contactors for defaulting on contracts, penalty fees to the QLD government, and paying off loans to ANZ (which ANZ don't think they'll get back)... That there will be still more than enough in the his share of the trust to cover his legal fees to make this happen?

Or is there another strategy I'm not seeing?


----------



## Junior (19 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> I'm curious as to what you think this strategy is, and how it benefits Bolton. Does he really think that after paying off penalty fees to the contactors for defaulting on contracts, penalty fees to the QLD government, and paying off loans to ANZ (which ANZ don't think they'll get back)... That there will be still more than enough in the his share of the trust to cover his legal fees to make this happen?
> 
> Or is there another strategy I'm not seeing?




Well he told the court he was planning a takeover after which he was planning to recapitalise the trust.  Whether this is the truth or not remains to be seen.

I don't know how this could have benefitted Bolton.... if he managed a take over would he then have had the capacity to pay himself a large salary?


----------



## sails (19 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> I'm curious as to what you think this strategy is, and how it benefits Bolton. Does he really think that after paying off penalty fees to the contactors for defaulting on contracts, penalty fees to the QLD government, and paying off loans to ANZ (which ANZ don't think they'll get back)... That there will be still more than enough in the his share of the trust to cover his legal fees to make this happen?
> 
> Or is there another strategy I'm not seeing?




Sorry, no idea.  I thought he was just another one caught unawares - obviously not so...

But what are your thoughts on the underwriters possibly siding with Bolton to wind the company up?


----------



## brty (19 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hi,

So what is there to stop Bolton from selling to Byrns or Ray??

That would leave Briscon/Rowe with a pointless court case and egg all over their faces.

Bolton could sell 99.9% of his stake, keep .1% to continue the wind up meeting going. Then after court case finishes, buy another stake from the ASX if he really wanted to.

Aint real life more interesting than fiction.

brty


----------



## Shine (19 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Had my first phone call from Brisconnections today.

They wanted to know who I intended to give my proxy to at the EGM.  They had a young young guy who read a scipt (very polite and sweet though).  

I think they must have had a busy day phoning their unitholders.


----------



## Enzyme (19 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Does anyone recall the mythical creature known as the hydra?  It had a dragon like head with a long neck.  If you cut off its head, two more would grow back in its place.  If you cut off one of those, another two more would grow to replace it, and so on.  That is what BrisConnections are fighting now.  They might cut off ASI's head, but already another two have grown to replace it.  These annoying little companies can spring up faster than a football team of QC's can hope to strike them down.



Man, that is a mixed metaphor if ever I've seen one.  A football team vs the hydra.  I'll be staying back after class!  :homer:


----------



## Sunder (19 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> Sorry, no idea.  I thought he was just another one caught unawares - obviously not so...
> 
> But what are your thoughts on the underwriters possibly siding with Bolton to wind the company up?




As long as it's all legal and those owed money get paid, I'm all for it.

That is, the government gets paid their contract break fees, and the tolling rights revert back to the government, and the government gets to re-tender the project

Building and supply contractors will get paid their outstanding invoices and contract break fees (if they negotiated any)

ANZ and any other creditors got paid their loans + interest back

Finally, anything left over gets redistributed back to the unit holders.

If there's enough money left in the trust, this would almost be a perfect out, except that the govt would have to retender.

If there's not enough money left in the trust, then a lot of people will be out of pocket. In which case, it's not really fair on them, and the trust shouldn't be wound up without the second installment being collected and the proceeds distributed to creditors. In that case we open another whole can of worms which we've discussed before. 

This is not a zero sum game. Someone has to wear the pain, and I think the order should be:

1. Unit holders, including those who fraudulently dumped shares if a court decides it's fraud.

2. The under writer

3. The banks and other creditors (such as contractors)

4. The tax payer.

- Which you might notice is the exact inverse on who I thought should get paid out and in what order, above. 

What are your thoughts on the issue of winding up the trust, and who should be wearing the pain if it does all go sour?


----------



## thermalmonster (19 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Very interesting happenings.

If you remember Garpul Gumnuts  previous posts,

by big & buy as many as you can........ maybe not such bad advice after all.
Like I stated before there are always people who have the know how to capitalise on others miss haps or misfortune.

One mans poop is another mans fodder.

Anyone have any feedback on what happened in court today?
is that the last day?

On another note.
BCSCA had plenty of time to sort things out with unit holders before it got to this ludicrous stage.
I know people off this forum wrote to them asking for assistance.
They would here none of it.

Reep what they sow I say


----------



## Enzyme (19 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Shine said:


> Had my first phone call from Brisconnections today.
> 
> They wanted to know who I intended to give my proxy to at the EGM.  They had a young young guy who read a scipt (very polite and sweet though).
> 
> I think they must have had a busy day phoning their unitholders.



What was their script?

Did they say winding up the trust wouldn't remove the $2 liability?


----------



## banco (19 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

This bolton guy is a lot savvier then the other 26 year olds I know.


----------



## Enzyme (19 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

'Ray' has generated a lot of interest.  Well, at least he says he has: same link as before



> [Responses from interested unitholders]  are coming in thick and fast, if it becomes much larger than envisaged I may have to hire an administrative assistant to manage the response




He says he has an add coming in the financial press.  We'll keep an eye out.


----------



## Shine (20 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> What was their script?
> 
> Did they say winding up the trust wouldn't remove the $2 liability?




Their script was basically reading out everything I have ever read on the company.

He stated that winding up the trust would not remove the $2 liability.

I asked whether he new about the other party seeking proxy's (Jim Byrnes acting on behalf of the Brisbane Toll Roads Pty Ltd who I had spoken to earlier this week) and he said no he hadn't heard about that.


----------



## Enzyme (20 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Shine said:


> Their script was basically reading out everything I have ever read on the company.
> 
> *He stated that winding up the trust would not remove the $2 liability.*
> 
> I asked whether he new about the other party seeking proxy's (Jim Byrnes acting on behalf of the Brisbane Toll Roads Pty Ltd who I had spoken to earlier this week) and he said no he hadn't heard about that.



That was very brave of them, considering the court is being asked to rule on that point:link



> Deutsche Bank counsel Alan Archibald, QC, told Justice Ross Robson that partly paid unitholders were told in the initial public offering that if the company was wound up they would "absolutely" have to pay the second and third $1 instalments, totalling $780 million, to BrisConnections.
> 
> But, said Mr Archibald, this was not true and shareholders "could not rule out the possibility that the manager could relieve part or whole of the shareholder liability" if a wind-up occurred.




Depending on the courts ruling, BrisConnections could be in trouble if it gets to the EGM and they've called their unit holders and advised them something that isn't true.  Considering that the PDS says in black and white that the liability on the instalment payments can be removed that might be quite likely.


----------



## sails (20 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Shine said:


> Had my first phone call from Brisconnections today.
> 
> They wanted to know who I intended to give my proxy to at the EGM.  They had a young young guy who read a scipt (very polite and sweet though).
> 
> I think they must have had a busy day phoning their unitholders.




Hey Shine, that must have taken you by surprise and put you on the spot!  Did you have to give them an answer, or did you just tell them you were undecided?

Actually, no need to reply if you don't want to disclose your phone call.  Sometimes these things are best kept quiet and I understand that...



Sunder said:


> As long as it's all legal and those owed money get paid, I'm all for it.
> 
> That is, the government gets paid their contract break fees, and the tolling rights revert back to the government, and the government gets to re-tender the project
> 
> ...




I'm somewhat mystified by your reply!  So, is Bolton no longer a Robin Hood in your opinion if the underwriters side with him?  

Personally, I have no views on Bolton at this stage with so little information except that as a major shareholder I imagine he would have some rights. As I stated before, he appears to be in a totally different league to the mums and dads caught unawares - and they are the ones whom I am cheering on...

I also don't understand why you say the unit holders should be the first in line pay up when it is fairly well understood that they have no where near the funds which will automatically put it back to the underwriters for whom you appear to have the most sympathy?

I am primarily and options trader (as time permits) and use more technicals than fundamentals.  So have no opinions on the trust issues.  I'm sure it will be thrashed out in the courts...

However, it is because of the special trading approvals for options and warrants I have had to do every time when opening a new account with a different broker, I have raised the questions as to why shares incurring so much debt do not also require some minimal education and approval before these shares are even available on the watchlist.

As there are possibly only a very small percentage of share traders that would use options or warrants, many would not be aware that such special approvals even existed.  This has been the main reason for my posts in this thread.

I am still mystified as to why these shares were still made available after Mrs He got caught unawares last year.  Obviously, the powers that be had their reasons, but from the outside looking in, it seems strange to continue allowing potentially unsuitably funded mums and dads access to these exceptionally sophisticated shares.


----------



## NiMaC (20 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> I'm somewhat mystified by your reply!  So, is Bolton no longer a Robin Hood in your opinion if the underwriters side with him?
> 
> Personally, I have no views on Bolton at this stage with so little information except that as a major shareholder I imagine he would have some rights. As I stated before, he appears to be in a totally different league to the mums and dads caught unawares - and they are the ones whom I am cheering on...
> 
> ...



Here Here!!!!!
Mabey because they knew what what were doing!! 
"Lets hit the uneducated investor, they won't realize until its to late, and then we've got em".


----------



## Enzyme (20 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Here is the first report I've found on yesterday's proceedings.  Just the fax in debt-laden deed dash


----------



## sails (20 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Here is the first report I've found on yesterday's proceedings.  Just the fax in debt-laden deed dash




And this is an interesting little excerpt from that same report:



> Deutsche Bank has already made a submission to the court that BrisConnections is misleading its members.
> 
> "Unit holders have been told … simply and absolutely, that 'you will have to pay $2, full stop'. That is inaccurate," Alan Archibald, QC, for Deutsche, said.


----------



## Enzyme (20 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Yep.  That was why I asked Shine to confirm if BrisCons included in their script the bit about the $2 liability remaining even if the trusts are wound up.  

If BrisCons win the court case there will be no EGM and they have nothing to worry about.

But if they lose the case and it goes down to the EGM they've just bet the house on the judge agreeing with them that winding up the trusts 'absolutely' does not remove the liability.  If the judge doesn't agree then they are stuffed.  The EGM becomes a lose/lose situation for them.  If Bolton and Byrns and Ray get their 75% then the trusts get wound up and they've lost.  But if they do manage to 'win' and stop Bolton getting 75% they are now wide open to further court action.  The result of the EGM can be challenged because they've provided misleading information.  It is back to court before anything gets resolved.

Idiots!


----------



## prawn_86 (20 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Perhaps any BrisCon holders that have not yet recieved a phone call could set up a recording system so if the do receive a call they can record the script.


----------



## Rastan (20 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I sort of gave up on this thread when it became a Sunder vs all rematchathon. Now I come back I see the mysterious Mr Williams has signed up for all of Boltons debt and dissapeared! 

I think they will need Scooby Doo and the team to unravel this one and unmask the final villain! This is seriously entertaining from the sidelines, although much sympathy to anyone caught up having to play on the field....


----------



## Cats (20 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Shine said:


> Their script was basically reading out everything I have ever read on the company.
> 
> He stated that winding up the trust would not remove the $2 liability.
> 
> I asked whether he new about the other party seeking proxy's (Jim Byrnes acting on behalf of the Brisbane Toll Roads Pty Ltd who I had spoken to earlier this week) and he said no he hadn't heard about that.




Is James W Byrnes and Associates the same as Jim Byrnes ? This is very confusing ........we have a letter from James W Byrnes concerning a proxy and future litigation...........


----------



## Julia (20 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Are you able to post the content of the letter?


----------



## Shine (20 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Cats said:


> Is James W Byrnes and Associates the same as Jim Byrnes ? This is very confusing ........we have a letter from James W Byrnes concerning a proxy and future litigation...........




Yep I'm pretty certain that's him.  He's a pretty well known guy.  When I spoke to him on the phone (I phoned him to enquire regarding his letter he sent to me re acquiring 19.9% of shares) - he mentioned that he will also be sending out a letter under his signature to seek my proxy.

Sails - when BrisConnections phoned me I was surprised.  Of course I was driving and had to pull over (isn't that always the way).  But I had all my data on my units in the back seat of the vehicle (I carry it with me everywhere with me these days) so I could quickly grab it and ask any questions I wanted to.  I could tell the guy wasn't really interested in what I had to say - he just wanted to get through what he was obliged to tell me.  I told them that my proxy was definitely leaning towards Australian Style Investments - but I hadn't made a final decision.


----------



## banco (21 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Is this the Jim Byrnes that the Sydney paper's refer to as "colourful"?


----------



## Enzyme (21 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

The latest reports on yesterdays proceedings:

Key BrisConnections witness faces grilling in court

Toll road options man faces court

Ray implies that the judge made some kind of ruling about the liability on Wednesday, but doesn't say what:  same link as before



> There are at least 2 known offmarket entities buying stock at 0.00001 cents per unit.
> 
> 1- has the backing of a offshore hedge fund
> 
> ...


----------



## Lisa123 (21 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I am an uneducated investor to get into this mess! 
And now trying to find a way out.

1. In October/2008, I bought ~1,200,000 units at an average price of 3.2 cents. At that time, the stocks sounded good: the proposed distribution of dividend of 5.95 cents were still in place, fully underwritten, on-schedule, etc. 

2.  I have read through this read to study a possible way out:

2.1. it seems the only way mentioned is to sell off-market
- Is this absolutely safe, there is no further loss ?

2.2. I wonder if it is also good to:
- setup a company (with me as a director)
- tranfer off-market the units above to the new company
- the $1,200,000 liability will cause bankrupcy 
- Could you please advise the complication to me: I assume the the debt collector will not touch my private house. What about my weekly salary ?

3. It is better to act now (either 2.1 or 2.2), or wait for the outcome of the court case ? The units are listed for sale at 0.1 cents since 27-11-2009. 

Many thanks!


----------



## Enzyme (21 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hi Lisa,

I am terribly sorry to hear of your situation.  

I think you should be careful paying too much attention to what is said in this thread.  I am one of many that has been full of suggestions, but I am a total amateur on these issues.  I suspect most or all of us are.  Get some professional advice.

Regarding the transfer you suggest, BrisConnections have stated that off-market transfers conducted to defeat creditors can be reversed:  asx release (page 9)

I don't know if that is true or not, but there is a clear threat.

There are two groups around at the moment who are offering to buy the shares for a nominal amount.  There is Jim Byrnes group.  I don't know how to get into contact with him, but Shine has his phone number.  Perhaps he could send you a Private Message and give you his number.  The other group is the 'Ray' group.  His email is address is in the thread I've linked to here.  

Either of these guys appear to offer a legal way out for you.  They will actually buy your shares as opposed to you gifting them away as people did with Bolton, but you will only get $12 for you 1.2 million shares.  :-(


----------



## Enzyme (21 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Lisa123 said:


> 3. It is better to act now (either 2.1 or 2.2), or wait for the outcome of the court case ? The units are listed for sale at 0.1 cents since 27-11-2009.



Sorry, I didn't answer this.

With my usual disclaimer that I am not an expert, I'd act ASAP.  If BrisCons win the case and the EGM is cancelled then Ray and Byrns might disappear.  I think they are hoping to make money on the windup of the trusts.  The result of the court case might remove the reason for their interest.


----------



## Enzyme (21 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> I think you should be careful paying too much attention to what is said in this thread.




Oops.  That should have read _I *don't* think you should be careful paying too much attention to what is said in this thread.  _


----------



## Prospector (21 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Oops.  That should have read _I *don't* think you should be careful paying too much attention to what is said in this thread.  _




Now I am really confused. I am dreadful with double negatives. Should Lisa be careful or not?
All the best Lisa, I would be PMing Thermal Monster, Bushie, or Shine to see what they are doing.  Find them in the Members list.


----------



## Macquack (21 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> Now I am really confused. I am dreadful with double negatives. Should Lisa be careful or not?




That one has got me baffled as well. 

Is there such a thing as a triple negative?


----------



## Enzyme (21 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Er, well, um, I think maybe I should less.  :homer:


----------



## Largesse (21 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Er, well, um, I think maybe I should less.  :homer:




gets better and better


----------



## sails (21 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Lisa,  I also feel very sorry for the predicament you have found yourself in.   Did you buy yours through an online broker too?  If so, was there any warning before you purchased?

Giving of any financial advice is not allowed on the forum and this thread is more representative of differing views and ideas.  I agree with Enzyme that you need good, professional legal advice for your specific situation - LOL no matter what he meant with his mixed up sentence! 

Anyway, on page 9 of the ASX release it states the circumstances where off-market transfers can be voidable.  Then in the next paragraph it gives the circumstances under which the transaction will not be regarded as voidable.

So on the basis of the above and if it were me, I would be asking a good legal professional some questions along these lines:
"If Nick, Ray, Jim, Harry, George, Suzie or whoever else might pop up asking to purchase my shares and I choose to take up their offer, is that sufficient reason for transfer to stand?"
"Would this be more concrete than trying to set up a brand new company that possibly has no other purpose than as a vehicle to dispose of the shares?"
"What are my alternatives?"

I certainly don't know all the legal ins and outs of this thing, so good legal advice from a professional is a must, IMO.   I hope it all works out OK


----------



## Cats (21 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> Are you able to post the content of the letter?




I hope you can open it.Let me know if you don't.


----------



## Prospector (21 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Wow, cats, very interesting to see this.  Given the immense value involved, the lawyers will be chewing over this for months.  At the very least, I expect the Unit holders will not have to make the first instalment (not that that was ever going to be possible for most!) until the Court has deliberated.  And that could take months!


----------



## Julia (21 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Thanks, Cats.  As you can see, it came through perfectly.  How fascinating this gets with every passing day.  (with apologies to holders who must be finding it anything but fascinating.)

What have you decided to do in response to the letter, Cats?


----------



## Cats (22 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

As we have a few more days before the proxy form is due.....waiting to see how the court case with Bolton goes........

"Double, double, toil and trouble
Fire burn and cauldron bubble"........ (.guess Shakespeare had his  bad times too.......)


----------



## Shine (23 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



banco said:


> Is this the Jim Byrnes that the Sydney paper's refer to as "colourful"?




Yes you are correct - that is the same guy.


----------



## Enzyme (23 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

For Lisa and the other unit holders - Ray has now said that his offer is "valid till the last business day in Mar09 conditional on securing 80 Million units".  same link as before

So if you are going to go that way you don't have much time.  He also says that it is conditional on him getting 80 million units, so if he doesn't get that then he can pull the plug and disappear.

If I read that Byrns letter right then they are only after unit holders proxy for the meeting, but they are not actually offering to buy anyone's units.  Is that right, or have I missed something and they are actually offering to buy units as well?

Is this a correct picture of the options available to unit holders:

a.  Sell to 'Ray'.  Regardless of the outcome of the court case and the EGM they should be okay, having sold their shares in a legal off-market transfer to a buyer who is aware of the liability.  There is a risk that the transfer might not happen if he doesn't get 80m units, or if he gets a lot more than 80m units he might not be able to take everyone's units off their hands;

b.  Hold on and hope Bolton wins the current court case, and then that at the EGM Bolton, Ray and Byrns get their way.

c. ???

What else is there?

In those terms it seems pretty obvious to me taking up Ray's offer is the best option.  If the transfer doesn't end up happening you're not really any worse off than holding on and hoping.  If the transfer does happen then you are probably free, regardless of what happens in court or at the EGM.

The only reason not to go with Ray would be if there was another offer on the table, in which case I'd go for which ever option would get the shares off my hands the soonest.  Time is running out fast, and the result of the court case could change everything.


----------



## Lisa123 (23 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Thank you, Enzyme for a great assessment!

I will strive for option (a).


----------



## Bushie (23 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hi Lisa123, please check you private messages. Bushie


----------



## Enzyme (23 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Here is an update of this mornings court proceeding:  Briscon: Investor can't pay $77m


----------



## Enzyme (24 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

A couple more reports of yesterdays court proceedings:

Brisbane Airport toll road in BrisConnections cash stoush

Old friends prove to be best friends

BrisCons did an ASX another release concerning the proposed meeting:

asx release

The market depth has been falling.  There are about 40 fewer sellers and 40 million fewer units for sale on market than there was a week ago.  Where are they all going?  Could Ray already be half way to his 80 million units?


----------



## Enzyme (24 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

The AFR has an article today that says more about what happened in court than any of the articles I linked to.

It describes how the Queensland Government lawyers argued against allowing the meeting, describing how bad it would be if the trusts were wound-up:  Vital project in jeopardy, refinancing difficult, would cost more to restart etc etc.

The article continued



> However, Justice Ross Robson has questioned whether he has the power to prevent the meeting, and lawyers for the Queensland government admit they "don't have authority for a case of this kind".
> 
> Justice Robson said:  "Unitholders are facing a very difficult position and you are saying they shouldn't hold a meeting because they would be committing a tort against the state of Queensland".
> 
> "That is not an issue before the court and I would like to hear how I can do what you ask," said the judge.


----------



## Struzball (24 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

If Anna Bligh was serious about keeping jobs she'd swoop in and invest a few $100m in Brisconnections.

Wouldn't be such a bad investment.


----------



## Shine (24 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> For Lisa and the other unit holders - Ray has now said that his offer is "valid till the last business day in Mar09 conditional on securing 80 Million units".  same link as before
> 
> If I read that Byrns letter right then they are only after unit holders proxy for the meeting, but they are not actually offering to buy anyone's units.  Is that right, or have I missed something and they are actually offering to buy units as well?




Enzyme - there is another letter circulating from the Brisbane Toll Road Link Pty Ltd to which Jim Byrnes is the corporate advisor - they are hoping to get 19.9% of units as well.


----------



## Julia (24 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Another personal story.  Doubt that this stuff adds anything at this stage.
http://business.smh.com.au/business...at-risk-20090324-989e.html?sssdmh=dm16.367945


----------



## Enzyme (25 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

This article has more significant developments in it than any we've seen in a while:

Macquarie threatens legal action to stop Bolton

Now Macquarie are taking legal action against ASI to prevent the meeting!

But the judge said this:


> "Who is going to speak for the unit holders?" Justice Robson asked. "One of the complications is that BrisConnections is not representing the interests of the unit holders. BrisConnections is ringing them up and telling them not to vote. One of the problems is that the unit holders are at the bottom of the queue."



Yay.


----------



## Cats (25 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> Another personal story.  Doubt that this stuff adds anything at this stage.
> http://business.smh.com.au/business...at-risk-20090324-989e.html?sssdmh=dm16.367945




 If more untiholders  stuck together maybe it would  make a difference to the court proceedings ?.....see article in couriermail......
Judge Robson said in court 
"Its a real problem, I think in this case the unitholders ....seem to be at the bottom of the queue "


----------



## Prospector (25 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

What I did notice in this link is that this couple also bought through Commsec!  Who do not offer the final warning, unlike NAB (My experience) and ETRade(ANZ - Julia's). Has anyone caught up in this fiasco NOT bought through Commsec? 
Hm, wonder if the documents presented to court have been about this very thing as raised on ASF?

And this:
_Outside court Mr Csutoros said he bought the units on CommSec for 0.3 cents each, and there was no warning that the shares were partly paid and two further $1 payments had to be made on each share.
"I just simply clicked and they were mine,'' he said.
*"There should have been a warning, but there was none.''*
Mr Csutoros said his house was worth "about $450,000, maybe $500,000'' and he would lose it if the first call was made on April 29.
Mr Slater told the court there was no warning of further payments on the CommSec site. "It's simply not there".
For $600 he stands to lose the family home. it's outrageous, almost criminal._


----------



## sails (25 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Cats said:


> If more untiholders  stuck together maybe it would  make a difference to the court proceedings ?.....see article in couriermail......
> Judge Robson said in court
> "Its a real problem, I think in this case the unitholders ....seem to be at the bottom of the queue "




Cats, I agree.  If unwitting unit holders worked together (or at least the ones that are still holding) - the judge might begin to see another very sad side of this debacle and that there are many others caught in the same way.


----------



## NiMaC (25 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

The Yahoo forum topic that "Ray" fellow was on has been deleted all of a sudden. A bit strange don't you think!
http://au.messages.yahoo.com/finance/finance_stocktalk/107989?p=1


----------



## Enzyme (25 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Has "Ray" done a runner?  Did he delete the thread, or was it deleted on him.  Someone over there is querying what happened, but no responses yet:  link  I'm guessing that he is an ordinary bloke who got a bit excited at the possibility of a 30-50 cent return per share on the windup of the trusts (as was mentioned in court), and things might have got a bit too real for him.  

Perhaps he got an email from the BrisConnections legal team who monitor this thread closely.  In fact, every time there is a new post in this thread there is a momentary holdup in the proceeding in the Victorian Supreme Court as the noise of 50+ lawyers receiving SMS alerts of the new post drowns out the business of the court. *

It is a measure of how bizarre the situation is when some anonymous bloke on the internet dissapearing _without_ taking peoples shares for a tiny fraction of what people paid for them is a bad thing.

I guess unit holders are left with the Byrnes offer.  At least that has a name, address, phone number and email address - thanks to the letter posted by Cats.

* When I say _fact_ in this context I am using a loose interpretation of the word, with an actual intended meaning closer to _something I made up_


----------



## Enzyme (25 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Meanwhile, market depth continues to fall.  There are seven fewer sellers and over ten million fewer units for sale today than there was yesterday.  Where are they all going?  Byrnes?


----------



## sails (25 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> Meanwhile, market depth continues to fall.  There are seven fewer sellers and over ten million fewer units for sale today than there was yesterday.  Where are they all going?  Byrnes?




Or could it be that Ray got his desired quota?  Of course, all conjecture, but certainly interesting to watch.  Only time will tell...


----------



## steve999 (25 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

What legal rights do Macquarie have to stop the meeting? Or are they just trying to scare the shareholders?


----------



## sails (25 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I don't think this article has been posted yet - it's titled "Macquarie threatening legal action to stop Bolton": http://business.theage.com.au/busin...egal-action-to-stop-bolton-20090324-98z4.html - and some excerpts:
This one sounds a bit vague:


> The letter also states that Macquarie will seek an injunction, but does not specify precisely what it wants to injunct. "It's a little confusing," said one of the parties involved in the case.



and as quoted by the judge in the above article:


> "Who is going to speak for the unit holders?" Justice Robson asked. "One of the complications is that BrisConnections is not representing the interests of the unit holders. BrisConnections is ringing them up and telling them not to vote. One of the problems is that the unit holders are at the bottom of the queue."



and someone has finally pointed out the bottom line:


> With almost 80 per cent of the 390 million BrisConnections units on issue held by retail shareholders, many of whom won't be able to make the next call, the underwriters face a massive liability.


----------



## Enzyme (25 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

According to that article Sails posted, the Judge has formed the opinion that BrisConnections are not representing the interests of shareholders.

A lot of us here have been of the same opinion for a long time, but it is highly significant for a supreme court judge to come to the same view.  It is significant because under the Corporations Act a company can be wound up if the management are not acting in the interests of members:



> CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 461
> 
> (1) The Court may order the winding up of a company if:
> 
> ...




 (thanks to freddy2 for the original post)

*The Court may order the winding up of a company if...affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner that is...contrary to the interests of the members as a whole;"* 

So unit holders don't even need to have the EGM to wind up BrisConnections.  They can wind up BrisConnections in court regardless of the result of the action against ASI .  The only problem is finding the cash to fund the remora of lawyers required.  But if I had the choice between taking out another mortgage on my house to pay lawyer bills, or losing my house entirely to debt collectors for Macquarie Bank I don't think I'd have to think too long about what I would do.

(though personally I'd look to take up Byrne's offer before it came to that)


----------



## NiMaC (25 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> According to that article Sails posted, the Judge has formed the opinion that BrisConnections are not representing the interests of shareholders.
> 
> A lot of us here have been of the same opinion for a long time, but it is highly significant for a supreme court judge to come to the same view.  It is significant because under the Corporations Act a company can be wound up if the management are not acting in the interests of members:
> 
> ...




Your right Enzyme, the bottom line is Brisconnect has let these toxic securities on to the unsuspecting retail share market, and knowingly stood by and let it all happen. If they were acting responsibly and in the interests of the share holders that they already had, they should have alerted ASX, CommSec and other online brokers to have a warning message before buyers finalized their purchase. Then all this debacle would not have occurred & the genuine shareholders who knew full well what their liability was from the start would have much better value on the securities now. I'd say the affairs of the company have not and are not being conducted in a responsible manner for the majority of the members. Do we have two sets of rules,one set for those with lots of money and the other set for those that have not ? They seem to be employing bully boy tactics which maybe ok if they are all bully boys, but what about poor "mum & dad" investors who got sucked into this scam, and has no way out and could possibly loose everything. Why is ASIC so quite on this? Maybe because Trevor Rowe is on the board? There is something very smelly about the whole affair and it should be investigated further.


----------



## Prospector (25 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



NiMaC said:


> Your right Enzyme, the bottom line is Brisconnect has let these toxic securities on to the unsuspecting retail share market, and knowingly stood by and let it all happen. If they were acting responsibly and in the interests of the share holders that they already had, they should have alerted ASX, CommSec and other online brokers to have a warning message before buyers finalized their purchase.




Maybe they did alert the brokers but Commsec didnt heed it; as both NAB and ANZ did have a warning.

This is an interesting left-field turn though; taking the momentum from the company, back to the stakeholders; and because so many of the retail investors can not afford the instalments, to force them to pay them is totally acting out of their best interests. And I bet any Judge will enforce that line.


----------



## AlterEgo (25 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I’ve been following this saga with great interest. What legitimate reason could Brisconnections possibly have to stop this meeting? Don’t the unit holders have the right to have a say in how the company is being run?

It seems pretty clear to me that the majority of unit holders don’t have the money for the next instalment, so what is the purpose of dragging everyone through court? According to the following link, Joseph Santamaria, QC, representing BrisConnections stated that “winding up the trust was not in the interests of shareholders” and "The solution proposed by the defendant is no solution". Well if winding up the trust isn’t the solution, then what is the solution? Have Brisconnections proposed a better solution for unit holders? I think not.

In my view, Brisconnections have only themselves to blame for all this mess. They knew long ago that naive retail investors were being trapped in to the situation they now face, and yet they did nothing to prevent it from happening, and haven’t offered shareholders any other solution to their predicament. In my opinion, the directors have handled this whole affair very poorly. They are supposed to be working in the unit holders interests but I don’t see how threats of legal action and bankruptcy are in the unit holders best interests.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25237635-664,00.html


----------



## Struzball (25 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I'm amazed at the amount of people who don't know about this Brisconnections debacle.  

Scarily, even some of the people who work on the AirportLink Project haven't heard there is a problem in the first place!


----------



## Enzyme (25 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

That market depth has been really interesting over the last few days.  

At the end of todays trading there were 16 million fewer units in the sell queue than there was at the start - but no trades.  

There are roughly 50 million fewer units on offer for sale now than there was a week ago, but there hasn't been any trades.  They are going somewhere, and I bet it isn't unit holders suddenly deciding to hold on for the long term.

I expect to see an ASX substantial shareholder notice shortly saying Byrnes (AKA Brisbane Toll Road Link Pty Ltd) has more units than Bolton.


----------



## Enzyme (25 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I'm sorry if I'm spamming this thread, but this time it is worth it.

BrisConnections CFO Mr Nicholas Lattimore is doing a webcast tomorrow morning at 9:00am on preserving unit holder value.  Member of the public are invited to send in messages for the presenter ahead of time.  I'm just putting together my message now.  Feel free to join in with your own message.

BRISCONNECTIONS UNIT TRUSTS Audio Webcast


----------



## Martin 123 (25 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> I'm sorry if I'm spamming this thread, but this time it is worth it.
> 
> BrisConnections CFO Mr Nicholas Lattimore is doing a webcast tomorrow morning at 9:00am on preserving unit holder value.  Member of the public are invited to send in messages for the presenter ahead of time.  I'm just putting together my message now.  Feel free to join in with your own message.
> 
> BRISCONNECTIONS UNIT TRUSTS Audio Webcast




Yes , he will inform public that they were nominated to Guinness Book of Records as biggest value destroyers in shortest time 1000%  in 6 months time.


----------



## Martin 123 (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

And fun continue:
Justice Robson said the toll-road operator had not given the court sufficient evidence of the company's financial position.

More retail shareholders have come forward to say they were unaware BrisConnections shares came with instalment obligations.

Geoffrey Slater, who is representing individual unit holders, called for Justice Robson to appoint a representative to examine the company's financial position, and to order a meeting where it must disclose all details to shareholders if the EGM is cancelled, and before the instalment due date.


----------



## Enzyme (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Rebel's bid fails to get court nod



> Justice Robson said the toll-road builder had failed to provide the court evidence of whether unit holders would be better off if they were forced to pay the instalments due next month.


----------



## Prospector (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



> Justice Robson said the toll-road builder had failed to provide the court evidence of whether unit holders would be better off if they were forced to pay the instalments due next month.




Its blatantly obvious it isnt in their best interests, so the Justice's decision seems rather obvious, doesnt it!


----------



## Enzyme (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I think the _rebel's bid failed_ bit was a reference to Bolton's attempt to get Macquarie's new action heard as part of this case instead of as a separate case next week.


----------



## Cats (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

The letter was posted for interest........do your own research
http//www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25217568-36418,00.html


----------



## Martin 123 (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> I think the _rebel's bid failed_ bit was a reference to Bolton's attempt to get Macquarie's new action heard as part of this case instead of as a separate case next week.




Exactly ,title is misleading it is in regards of Macquarie

http://www.businessday.com.au/busin...ne-in-briscon-legal-battle-20090325-9ajz.html


----------



## Prospector (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Cats said:


> The letter was posted for interest........do your own research
> http//www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25217568-36418,00.html




Cant get that link happening Cats. Can you precis?


----------



## cuttlefish (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

All very interesting - glad to see that people aren't taking this lying down.  

This product was a disaster waiting to happen and breaks the historical conventions of historical NL mining company ctg shares and the TLSCA ctg shares where instalment payments were optional (as I understand it).   

Fine print in a PDS and no signature requirement for an unsophisticated retail investor to take on millions of dollars worth of debt is a scenario that should not happen in the Australian trading/business environment.

The company has taken a head in the sand approach to this disaster-waiting-to-happen by allowing the stock to continue trading rather than suspending it once the price fell below 10c - and has shown little regard or compassion for the plight of the shareholders that fell into this trap.

I've read through a large number of the historical asx announcements by BCS and in my opinion there are a lot of inconsitencies littered through the announcements which would have made it very easy for shareholders to be unaware of the liability attached to these units.


----------



## sails (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> Cant get that link happening Cats. Can you precis?




Prospector - try this one : http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25217568-36418,00.html


----------



## Cats (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

What is the latest date one can sell?


----------



## sails (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Cats said:


> What is the latest date  one can sell?




Why wait until the last minute, Cats?  It appears on the surface that there are a lot more than 19.9% of unwitting retail holders.  It also appears that once the 19.9% target is reached, Jim's investors are not offering to buy anymore - at least that's my understanding.  

I apologise if it is more complicated than it appears on the surface, but from my perspective it seems curious why this offer is not being snapped up quickly to avoid missing out...

I can imagine there would be a huge fear of going from the frypan into the fire - especially after being caught so horribly the first time.


----------



## Prospector (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Thanks Sails!    I thought every entity had to prove themselves before establishing a financial account; and which also applies to share purchases.  So how could these dud owners exist?  Maybe many holders have already offloaded them off-market to some dubious people?


----------



## Enzyme (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Hey Jim, you can try looking up those super funds on the Australian Business Register (ABR).

I did a couple of searches on the details you gave.  One case gave dozens of possible matches, but another give just three or four possibilities.  It might be helpful.

Australian Business Register Advanced Search - remember to filter by self managed super funds.  Any other details like state would help narrow down the possibilities.

You can download the details to excel and work with them there, but this might require the ABN:

ABR downloadable tools

I hope this helps.

I notice that today there are currently another 6 sellers and an additional ten million units come on market for sale.  I guess the two million units for sale for more than $0.001 belong to people who don't know what is happening.


----------



## steve999 (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> By memory, I believe BCS has warned that any off market transfers for the purpose of avoiding the debt can be overturned.




But if purchased/sold on market I assume there would be no problem?

If my quick math is correct, it would cost ~78K to buy 20% on market.

I understand it would cost a little bit more but wouldn't it prevent any legal challenges? Cheaper than lawyers I would have thought.


----------



## Prospector (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



steve999 said:


> But if purchased/sold on market I assume there would be no problem?
> 
> If my quick math is correct, it would cost ~78K to buy 20% on market.
> 
> I understand it would cost a little bit more but wouldn't it prevent any legal challenges? Cheaper than lawyers I would have thought.



But there are no on-market buyers, that is the problem.



> By memory, I believe BCS has warned that any off market transfers for the purpose of avoiding the debt can be overturned.




I dont think BCSCA have any legal right to assert that!  What people do with their shares (buy, sell, gift, offmarket transfer) is none of their business.  If the ASX was saying this, then possibly different story.  If you are not the registered owner when a specific event happens (eg dividend, SPP, etc etc) then the liability is not yours.


----------



## cuttlefish (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> By memory, I believe BCS has warned that any off market transfers for the purpose of avoiding the debt can be overturned.





I would have thought that in the situation being discussed above it would be deemed an arms length transaction - no relationship or previous association between buyer and seller - so its hard to see how it could be challenged. (but I'm not a lawyer don't take my word blah blah blah).  

Also BCS make a lot of statements but they are just a company expressing an opinion, they are not the law makers or the judiciary so anything they say is also challengable and arguably opinion and not necessarily fact.


----------



## cuttlefish (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

woops prospector beat me to it.


----------



## sails (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> ...Anyway, on page 9 of the ASX release it states the circumstances where off-market transfers can be voidable.  Then in the next paragraph it gives the circumstances under which the transaction will not be regarded as voidable....




This is where I got it from:  ASX release 
And above is part of the post where I discussed the wording in the document...


----------



## sails (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



cuttlefish said:


> I would have thought that in the situation being discussed above it would be deemed an arms length transaction - no relationship or previous association between buyer and seller - so its hard to see how it could be challenged. (but I'm not a lawyer don't take my word blah blah blah).
> 
> Also BCS make a lot of statements but they are just a company expressing an opinion, they are not the law makers or the judiciary so anything they say is also challengable and arguably opinion and not necessarily fact.




Agree, Cuttlefish.  But could cause a bit of fear, nevertheless...


----------



## steve999 (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> But there are no on-market buyers, that is the problem.




Sorry, I was referring to Byrnes etc who are looking to buy shares from people off market. Obviously he is looking for an even cheaper price for the shares but if there was a chance of a legal challenge then it may end up costing more... Obviously he is confident that they won't be able to reverse the transactions.


----------



## Prospector (26 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> This is where I got it from:  ASX release
> And above is part of the post where I discussed the wording in the document...




But it is still just their opinion and hasnt been challenged in Court.   They can say what they like, it  mean it can hold up in court.  I dont think it can!  They say that it is the investors responsibility if they are on the register to ensure they have paid.  They cannot challenge an off market transfer - that would open up pandora's box; and they cannot establish the motivations when selling off market.  It is a toothless threat, nothing more.  What shareholders need to do is ensure that with these transfers, their name is no longer on the register.


----------



## Martin 123 (27 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

"Although the case is near its end, the toll-road company has not given enough evidence of its financial position, according to Justice Ross Robson.

"The unit holders are the owners of this project, but what do they own?" he said yesterday."




http://business.theage.com.au/business/tangible-assets-of-briscon-queried-20090326-9chr.html


----------



## cuttlefish (27 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

It seems the directors of the company might be forgetting that it is the unitholders/shareholders who's interests they are supposed to serve.  It sounds like the vast majority don't feel well served by the current situation.


Given that the trust needs the instalment funds to pay for the construction of the road, and given that they would by now be aware that a large proporiont of those unit holders will not be in a position to pay the instalments - how do they account for this from a legal/accounting perspective in their books.   Are they entering into contracts with suppliers/subcontractors based on the assumption that this instalment revenue is coming in?  If so, is this a reasonable business practice?  Do they account for these instalments payments as an asset/receivable on their books?   Should they be writing that asset down if so, given the likelihood of a lot of non-payments?   (I'm not an accountant - would be interesting to know how they account for the pending payments on their books though and how much those payments are being relied upon in current contractual commitments they have been making prior to receiving those payments).

Actually I guess because it is fully underwritten there aren't really any questions to be asked about whether they will receive the instalment money so most of the above questions are probably moot.
 They will get the instalment funds from the underwriters for the unit holders that can't pay.


----------



## Enzyme (27 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

ASX substantial shareholder notice has been published, backing up what our Jim Byrnes has said:  asx release

The current court case has finished.  We're all now just waiting on the verdict:  asx release


----------



## Prospector (27 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



sails said:


> Thanks for the explanation, Jim.  That's how I understood page 9 of the document:ASX release.  Obviously your client wouldn't want to have his deals voided and explains the effort he has undertaken to ensure, to the best of his knowledge, that his purchases will hold.




Which means that any party who has sold BCSCA off market, for any price, to an identity who is neither bankrupt nor fraudulent has therefore been able to divest themselves of the instalment liability, even if it was done to avoid paying the instalment.  Sounds good to me! And what I expected.

It also means that this warning by BCSCA was wrong:
_By memory, I believe BCS has warned that any off market transfers for the purpose of avoiding the debt can be overturned._


----------



## Gazzer (27 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Prospector said:


> Which means that any party who has sold BCSCA off market, for any price, to an identity who is neither bankrupt nor fraudulent has therefore been able to divest themselves of the instalment liability, even if it was done to avoid paying the instalment.  Sounds good to me! And what I expected.
> 
> It also means that this warning by BCSCA was wrong:
> _By memory, I believe BCS has warned that any off market transfers for the purpose of avoiding the debt can be overturned._




So presumably it could follow that if someone has acted on the advice of BCSA and held onto their shares when they could have sold them off market, this might be grounds to refuse paying the next installment. That will be an interesting one for the lawyers to argue.


----------



## Prospector (27 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Gazzer said:


> So presumably it could follow that if someone has acted on the advice of BCSA and held onto their shares when they could have sold them off market, this might be grounds to refuse paying the next installment. That will be an interesting one for the lawyers to argue.



You can also bet that BCSCA have a disclaimer which says "Seek your own independent financial advice before acting on this information"


----------



## Cats (27 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

" Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing " ???/ As always do your own research.:
Cant seem to post links very well...but try this  www.smh.com.au  August 14th 2007 heading "Judge notes a calmer......."


----------



## Macquack (27 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I found this interesting. 

Brisbane Toll Road Link Pty Ltd (BTRL) acquired 1 million shares from "*Bristrap Pty Ltd*" for the consideration of $10.

Bristrap Pty Ltd was first registered on 9 January, 2009.

Looks like someone set up a $2 company to dump their Brisconnection shares into and then had second thoughts about the legality and so now has sold a second time to BTRL.


----------



## freddy2 (27 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

From the latest article:

------------
"If BrisConnections were to be wound up, unit holders would lose their ability to trade their units or accept any potential offer for their units," Nick Lattimore said on Boardroom Radio Australia yesterday.
------------

Getting zero is far better than paying a further $2 to get less than $2 back.

Disclosure: Never held any interest in these shares, just a curious bystander.


----------



## Prospector (27 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



freddy2 said:


> From the latest article:
> "If BrisConnections were to be wound up, unit holders would lose their ability to trade their units or accept any potential offer for their units," Nick Lattimore said on Boardroom Radio Australia yesterday.
> ------------




How could anyone say that with a straight face!


----------



## sails (27 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Cats said:


> " Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing " ???/ As always do your own research.:
> Cant seem to post links very well...but try this  www.smh.com.au  August 14th 2007 heading "Judge notes a calmer......."




Cats, I was only able to find an excerpt of that article, but I am mystified why it matters who offers the lifeline 
If the ASX permitted a smaller price and the same deal was done online, you would never know who bought them.  Is there a difference?

In any case, I get the impression that Jim is not the one actually buying - he speaks of someone by the name of Ray doing the buying.  That's just going on the bits and pieces I have read. 

Again, from the outside looking in, the lifeline currently being offered appears to allow people to put this behind them, get on with their lives, keep their possessions, etc.  Certainly not suggesting what you should do, just wondering what am I missing???  Too simplistic?


----------



## Cats (27 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Yes...I Agree.....if drowning you might hold onto any lifeline...but not the one that pushed you in.......


----------



## Martin 123 (28 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

And plot thickens....:Courier Mail Saturday 

"But behind the scenes, BrisConnections chairman Trevor Rowe had a number of negotiations with Bolton.

 Rowe's suggestion was to reinstate the dividend and defer the $1 instalment due in April. That would have seen Bolton pocket $4.5 million for his investment - and perhaps, if the April instalment was deferred, let him sell out before bigger liabilities kicked in.

Could this have been a high-risk greenmail attempt - that has put a $4.8 billion project at risk? "


----------



## Prospector (28 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Martin 123 said:


> And plot thickens....:Courier Mail Saturday
> 
> "But behind the scenes, BrisConnections chairman Trevor Rowe had a number of negotiations with Bolton.
> 
> ...




Surely it would now be illegal to re-instate the dividend once it has been announced to the market it was deferred!  ASIC would have a say, surely.


----------



## sails (28 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Cats said:


> Yes...I Agree.....if drowning you might hold onto any lifeline...but not the one that pushed you in.......




Thanks Cats, obviously you have your reasons of which I am not aware. I imagine you have put a lot of research into your predicament and sincerely wish you all the best.

Here are a few more recent articles:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25252317-3122,00.html - The article which Martin referred to earlier.

http://business.theage.com.au/busin...d-battle-with-unit-holders-20090327-9eca.html - and an interesting excerpt for unit holders: 



> In the words of Justice Robson, these are people in "a very difficult situation" due to the very entity — BrisConnections — that is supposed to be representing their interests.
> 
> Hugh McLernon, managing director of litigation funding firm IMF Australia, has agreed to pay for a senior counsel to represent several unit holders in the matter next week.
> 
> IMF successfully bankrolled a class action against Sons of Gwalia in 2003, and has recently been involved in litigation surrounding Opes Prime and Firepower Australia...




http://business.smh.com.au/business/fork-in-the-road-20090327-9e6d.html  (Almost the same article as the link above)

SMH - Letter to shareholders: http://newsstore.smh.com.au/apps/previewDocument.ac?docID=GCA00940093BCS


----------



## erana (28 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I just read an article about this mess in The Age. I'd heard about it before but hadn't paid much attention. Now I get what happened and my mouth is agape 

Have to wonder what this sort of thing does to investor confidence. Previously if a friend had a few thousand bucks to throw at something and asked me simply whether they'd be better off taking it to Star City or picking a few random stocks on CommSec, then leaving aside that neither is a great choice, I'd have advised them to do the latter. Now it seems they'd be safer taking their money to the casino or racetrack.


----------



## Julia (28 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

A further interview with an accountant representing investor couple on the ABC's "The National Interest".

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2009/2528356.htm


----------



## wonderrman (28 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> A further interview with an accountant representing investor couple on the ABC's "The National Interest".
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2009/2528356.htm




Thanks Julia, the interview was very good to listen to. It is certainly is a very interesting and bewildering case.


----------



## Martin 123 (28 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> A further interview with an accountant representing investor couple on the ABC's "The National Interest".
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2009/2528356.htm




Question to financial experts?
As mention in discussion : "Tool Road operator  invested into financial derivatives and lost few hundred millions in process.."
1- Underwriters are covering loss?
2-Unsophisticated investors (mums and dads) covering ?


----------



## Largesse (28 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

"Question to financial experts?
As mention in discussion : "Tool Road operator invested into financial derivatives and lost few hundred millions in process.."
1- Underwriters are covering loss?
2-Unsophisticated investors (mums and dads) covering ? "

Balance Sheet of BCS takes the hit, so ultimately, equity holders (ie. 80% M&D's) cover/take those lossses.


----------



## Martin 123 (28 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Largesse said:


> "Question to financial experts?
> As mention in discussion : "Tool Road operator invested into financial derivatives and lost few hundred millions in process.."
> 1- Underwriters are covering loss?
> 2-Unsophisticated investors (mums and dads) covering ? "
> ...




Hmmm... but they  invested into *Toll Road Builder* to built, not into Financial Institution ?to engage into sophisticated financial products and loose millions...( Please explain)


----------



## wonderrman (28 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Martin 123 said:


> Hmmm... but they  invested into *Toll Road Builder* to built, not into Financial Institution ?to engage into sophisticated financial products and loose millions...( Please explain)




The company can do what ever they want. Anyone can try and hedge their bets. These guys stuffed up massively, don't know how they haven't been held more accountable for this. 

Bit of a joke this whole situation, the EGM should go ahead, from the outside looking in, it looks like BrisConnect have forgotten that the unit holders own the company, not the management or lawyers.

 Not a unit holder, following with interest though. wonder.


----------



## Julia (28 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Martin 123 said:


> Question to financial experts?
> As mention in discussion : "Tool Road operator  invested into financial derivatives and lost few hundred millions in process.."
> 1- Underwriters are covering loss?
> 2-Unsophisticated investors (mums and dads) covering ?



When I heard this I pretty much gave up trying to figure out all the ramifications of this unholy mess.   The investment into derivatives adds yet another complication in what is already hard to work out.

I notice that all the original investors have gone very quiet.


----------



## Sunder (29 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Julia said:


> When I heard this I pretty much gave up trying to figure out all the ramifications of this unholy mess.   The investment into derivatives adds yet another complication in what is already hard to work out.
> 
> I notice that all the original investors have gone very quiet.




Have to admit the court case started opening things above my head as well. I did start noticing some very tenuous legal claims here based off the journalist reports, based off judges comments (which are not yet rulings). It made me realise that beyond this point, any comments I have to make could be almost as bad (although there were some VERY tenuous claims made by other forum members there!)

I think for now it's time to sit quietly, rather than debate for me. Still watching the thread, little to say at this point in time.


----------



## Prospector (29 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Yes, it is way beyond me now too.


----------



## Cats (29 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Forum......"Any public meeting place for open discussion "
Keep it coming guys !  Where else can one share ideas and thoughts on this ?


----------



## cuttlefish (29 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

I'm still astounded that this stock remains tradeable and isn't suspended.  Where is ASIC?  Where is the ASX?  (oh thats right, the BCS chairman is also on the ASX board, no conflict there ).

There is no orderly market for this stock and if a marketable parcel is considered to be $500 worth then any purchase of a marketable parcel also incurrs a $1,000,000 liability when both instalments are taken into account - thus this is a product that should not be available to retail investors any more and the stock/unit whatever the blinking heck it is should be suspended from trading to stop more flys falling into this venus fly trap created by the clever "merchant bankers" at Macquarie.   

disclosure - have never been a holder of BCSCA just another flabbergasted bystander.


----------



## NiMaC (29 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

Did anybody find out why the Yahoo forum thread was deleted?


----------



## Cats (30 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



NiMaC said:


> Did anybody find out why the Yahoo forum thread was deleted?



 Maybe Ray just found another forum ?


----------



## Joe Blow (30 March 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*

This thread has been temporarily closed while we conduct a detailed review of recent posts.


----------



## alphaman (30 March 2009)

*Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Just noticed the volume. Obviously whoever buying is buying because he thinks he can make a profit out of it, but I thought I'd just post this for people who are desperate to sell. (the BCS financial ruin thread has been temporaily closed)


----------



## roofa (30 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



alphaman said:


> Just noticed the volume. Obviously whoever buying is buying because he thinks he can make a profit out of it, but I thought I'd just post this for people who are desperate to sell. (the BCS financial ruin thread has been temporaily closed)




In pre-open, see announcement by Macquarie.


----------



## rico01 (30 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

this is prolly some sort of attempt to form a blocking stake for the shareholder vote at the forced meeting on april 9 or 14 remember 75% is required to force the company into self destruction,.


----------



## steve999 (30 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

http://business.theage.com.au/business/macquarie-takes-stake-in-brisconnections-20090330-9g8e.html


----------



## alphaman (30 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Yeah it does look like a blocking stake . MQG 8%, Rowe's QIC 10%, Capital Group 7%.


----------



## Julia (30 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

More background on some of the manipulations from Business Spectator.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...e-edge-$pd20090330-QLQDJ?OpenDocument&src=kgb


----------



## drsmith (31 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Macquarie's shelf.

http://business.smh.com.au/business/bankers-lock-horns-20090330-9h1e.html


----------



## nomore4s (31 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

What a mess, I truly feel sorry for holders of this company. It seems no one cares about the holders atm, everyone is too busy trying to cover thier own asses.

This is going to end in tears for everyone by the looks of it. The retail investors are all going to be declared bankrupt, the underwriters will be out of pocket because the fact is retail investors can't pay and it wouldn't surprise me if Brisconnections collapses. Sad state of affairs really.


----------



## drsmith (31 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

My guess is that the end result will be either the underwriters or the Queensland government (or a combination of) will fork out most of the instalement monies and that by the time this is all over, all the newspaper articles in one collection would be thicker than the bible.


----------



## alphaman (31 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Well at least some holders managed to get out. 8% out of 83%, that's almost 10% of the shares held by retail.


----------



## Prospector (31 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



drsmith said:


> Macquarie's shelf.
> 
> http://business.smh.com.au/business/bankers-lock-horns-20090330-9h1e.html




This is the bit I find interesting from that news:

_The units were acquired in the name of a $1 shelf company, ACN 136 024 970 Pty Ltd, which was created eight days ago. The only share of that shelf company is owned by Macquarie Capital Group, of 101 Collins Street in Melbourne._

In The Australian today it said that people who had made offmarket sales had to check that the people they were selling to were bona fide purchasers and if they could not afford the liability of the instalments, then this could revert to the original owner.  (I think it was Michael Walshe)  Yet here is Mac with its own shelf company.

I hope that the people affected  here were able to offload yesterday.  And I gather now that with Mac's purchase yesterday, along with support from a couple of institutional holders, they can now block Bolton.  Which puts the QLD Govt deep in do-do.

When this is all over it will make for an amazing read.   We get so little media coverage in Adelaide, in fact I suspect that no-one even knows about it except for those who are really into the share market.


----------



## cuttlefish (31 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Prospector said:


> In The Australian today it said that people who had made offmarket sales had to check that the people they were selling to were bona fide purchasers and if they could not afford the liability of the instalments, then this could revert to the original owner.  (I think it was Michael Walshe)  Yet here is Mac with its own shelf company..





What I don't get is - why is it ok to sell the stock on market to purchasers that can't afford to pay the liability, but not ok to sell it off market to purchasers that can't afford to pay?   So its actually ok to perform dodgy transactions as long as its done via the ASX?   Macquarie offloading last year to unwitting buyers (that can't afford the instalments) on-market is fine, but they'll jump and scream about those same buyers not being able to find any mugs to sell to 'on market' and selling instead off-market.

What kind of precedent does this set for all sorts of other 'off market' business transactions?

And in relation to the shelf company - has Macquarie injected the shelf company with the funds to pay for the two instalments - if not then what are the ramifications of that - have they provided guarantee's to the shelf company?  etc. etc.

complete shambles that could have been prevented by sensible regulation much earlier on in the piece when the share price began to fall to levels where it became unsuitable for trading by retail investors.


----------



## Prospector (31 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



cuttlefish said:


> What I don't get is - why is it ok to sell the stock on market to purchasers that can't afford to pay the liability, but not ok to sell it off market to purchasers that can't afford to pay?   So its actually ok to perform dodgy transactions as long as its done via the ASX?




Yes, I think that's the bottom line because it is a third party transaction.  Which means it isnt dodgy.


----------



## gfresh (31 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Yes, it will be QLD government and the tax payers will end up footing the bill.. so why didn't they just do this in the first place? 

About time they f'ed off all these private toll roads, nearly all of them end in failure of one sort or another. There always seems to be some shiftiness going on behind the scenes with lack of true transparency.


----------



## Absolutely (31 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



alphaman said:


> Well at least some holders managed to get out. 8% out of 83%, that's almost 10% of the shares held by retail.




Well yes this is good for those that got out but it must be to the detriment of the remainder who are left in. If Macquarie now have enough to prevent the winding up, those left in will be pursued for their installments I presume.

Easy to say in hindsight, but retail investors really needed to band together and collectively try and prevent Macquarie gaining a controlling stake. Leaving your shares on the ASX in the hope they will sell may or may not have come off for you. So some were lucky but those left behind are potentially in a more difficult position now I suppose.


----------



## prawn_86 (31 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

In the AFR today it said that Jim Byrnes will be seeking an injunction on some of the sales from yesterday, as they were already contracted to who he is working for, but the people had not taken the units out of the queue.

Lawyers must be loving it, there are about 3 cases running concurrently and more to come by the looks


----------



## Prospector (31 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



prawn_86 said:


> In the AFR today it said that Jim Byrnes will be seeking an injunction on some of the sales from yesterday, as they were already contracted to who he is working for, but the people had not taken the units out of the queue.
> 
> Lawyers must be loving it, there are about 3 cases running concurrently and more to come by the looks




Just when you think there is a plan afoot, something from left field happens.  So were these shares actually transferred to Jim, or was that just 'in train'; which was why they were 'left' in the queue; and if 'left in the queue' dont they have a counter obligation to actually have them available for sale?  Which means they must now buy some in order to satisfy the conditions of the contract?


----------



## prawn_86 (31 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Prospector said:


> Just when you think there is a plan afoot, something from left field happens.  So were these shares actually transferred to Jim, or was that just 'in train'; which was why they were 'left' in the queue; and if 'left in the queue' dont they have a counter obligation to actually have them available for sale?  Which means they must now buy some in order to satisfy the conditions of the contract?




All i know is that the lawyers will be laughing all the way to the bank. Im not willing to comment on contract law in a case like this cause who knows what will happen.

According to the AFR article there was already a 'contract' to buy some of the shares from JB's client offmarket, so if that contract is held up Mac Banks purchases may be invalide. Or as you suggest P, those who are supposed to supply JB may need to buy more...


----------



## cuttlefish (31 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



prawn_86 said:


> All i know is that the lawyers will be laughing all the way to the bank. Im not willing to comment on contract law in a case like this cause who knows what will happen.
> 
> According to the AFR article there was already a 'contract' to buy some of the shares from JB's client offmarket, so if that contract is held up Mac Banks purchases may be invalide. Or as you suggest P, those who are supposed to supply JB may need to buy more...





If someone signed a contract to sell their shares off market but also subsequently sold them on-market then they are technically short selling in the latter trade aren't they?

If the ASX had suspended trading of this stock a long time ago this would all have been made a lot easier - or alternately allow stocks to trade for .001 of a cent instead of just .1 of a cent.


----------



## sails (31 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



cuttlefish said:


> If someone signed a contract to sell their shares off market but also subsequently sold them on-market then they are technically short selling in the latter trade aren't they?
> 
> If the ASX had suspended trading of this stock a long time ago this would all have been made a lot easier - or alternately allow stocks to trade for .001 of a cent instead of just .1 of a cent.




I was thinking the same thing that they would technically be short and, again technically, would need to buy to close the short position.  Considering they were paid .1c by Macquarie, they would only be out of pocket by fees if they had to buy back at the same price.

But then, if Jim gets those trades reversed, they wouldn't want to be holding more shares again.   On the flip side, could be a rather profitable short if Bolton doesn't win   However, I doubt it would be allowed...

They would need very good legal advice, that's for sure.


----------



## Sunder (31 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



cuttlefish said:


> What I don't get is - why is it ok to sell the stock on market to purchasers that can't afford to pay the liability, but not ok to sell it off market to purchasers that can't afford to pay?




One's an arms length transaction, the other is not. 

I'm not sure why this is so hard for some people to understand? The law looks at both intent and action. When you make a dodgy looking off market transfer to someone who has stood up in the news and said "I don't have 93 million dollars" (or however big it is), then you really do have to question your intent in selling him the shares.


----------



## Struzball (31 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Sunder said:


> then you really do have to question your intent in selling him the shares.




I would imagine your intent is along the lines of standing up and saying "I don't have a million dollars".


----------



## Mitsimonsta (31 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

I am still at a loss why Macquarie doesn't buy BCSCA up at a massive discount so that they own it all, stump up the cash for the next two installments which they underwrote anyway, and let the thing get built, and roll it into another of their funds until the asset has real value.

They could then sell it off to another fund later on, or possibly even re-float it. I suspect a bit of short-term pain would eventual make a gain for their fundholders.


----------



## drsmith (31 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



prawn_86 said:


> All i know is that the lawyers will be laughing all the way to the bank. Im not willing to comment on contract law in a case like this cause who knows what will happen.
> 
> According to the AFR article there was already a 'contract' to buy some of the shares from JB's client offmarket, so if that contract is held up Mac Banks purchases may be invalide. Or as you suggest P, those who are supposed to supply JB may need to buy more...



Macquarie can top up from what's left for sale on the ASX if any of it's purchases are invalidated.

I'd like to know why Macquarie didn't move sooner before it became lawyers at 10 paces. The large number of units for sale at $0.001 on the ASX was always a weak point for Bolton.


----------



## drsmith (31 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Mitsimonsta said:


> I am still at a loss why Macquarie doesn't buy BCSCA up at a massive discount so that they own it all, stump up the cash for the next two installments which they underwrote anyway, and let the thing get built, and roll it into another of their funds until the asset has real value.
> 
> They could then sell it off to another fund later on, or possibly even re-float it. I suspect a bit of short-term pain would eventual make a gain for their fundholders.



Any part of the upcoming instalment they get from current shareholders is an amount they don't have to contribute themselves. In the current market they would then be in a position to offer a buyback to paying shareholders at a discount (if desired) thereby acquiring those units at a lower overall cost.


----------



## cuttlefish (31 March 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Sunder said:


> One's an arms length transaction, the other is not.
> 
> I'm not sure why this is so hard for some people to understand? The law looks at both intent and action. When you make a dodgy looking off market transfer to someone who has stood up in the news and said "I don't have 93 million dollars" (or however big it is), then you really do have to question your intent in selling him the shares.




Just because the transaction isn't done on the ASX doesn't mean its not an arms length transaction.  A transaction brokered by an independant third party I don't see why there is any more obligation to check out the credentials of the buyer than there is when the transaction is done via the ASX.  In fact its actually not technically possible to check out whether the buyer has the funds or not - there is no duty for a buyer of shares to disclose their ability or otherwise to pay these instalments - and no obligation on part of the seller to check whether the buyer can.  As long as the two parties are acting independantly then it is an arms length transaction in my non-legal, non-accounting ignoramuses opinion.

The ASX is just an exchange - it facilitates easy and efficient exchange and provides various protections for share traders which is why the majority of trading is done via the ASX - but there is no law or obligation for people to trade shares via the ASX if they don't wish to do so and just because they don't it does not mean the transaction is not an arms length transaction.

In this situation the ASX is not providing a mechanism for people to trade the stock at fair market value - as the fair market value is below the technical limits of the price points supported by the ASX and participant brokers systems.   The only reason (as far as I can see) that this offer is not being made via the ASX is because the price point is not supported by ASX systems.  If the party involved could put a bid on at .01 cent via the ASX systems I'm sure they would have gone that way instead instead of all the hassle hunting down strangers via the share registry.


----------



## Sunder (1 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



cuttlefish said:


> Just because the transaction isn't done on the ASX doesn't mean its not an arms length transaction.




That's correct.

However, when you know the intent the purchaser has, it's no longer arms length. 

Remember that this is not saying that it WILL be reversed, only that it MIGHT be reversed. 

Now if Bolton's actions are found to be fraudulent, and a court rules that reasonable person would have known at the time that his actions would be fraudulent, then you are in fact a knowing party to fraud  - and it is no longer arms length.

If you sold it to Bolton on the ASX on the other hand, you had no idea it was Bolton and that is arms length.


----------



## adman0001 (1 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Sunder said:


> However, when you know the intent the purchaser has, it's no longer arms length.




Sunder, did you know what his intent was at the start of the year? Did anyone? Does anyone really know, I mean, REALLY know know what his plan is. There are so much many more plays in this to go yet. And if you owned some, then what would you do? I'm curious.........


----------



## Prospector (1 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

I do wonder how a judge could determine what a reasonable person would do; and whether Bolton's actions in any way constituted anything illegal. His first purchase was certainly entirely legitimate (although not necessarily wise)  Is it illegal to purchase shares in a company to gain a controlling hand to determine its future?  Which is really all that Bolton is presumed to have done.  Is it up to the seller to ascertain whether the buyer has the means to pay the liabilities?  How could 'Joe Blow'   do that?


----------



## Julia (1 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

More addition to the general confusion.
http://business.smh.com.au/business...nt-mess-20090331-9ibx.html?sssdmh=dm16.369337


----------



## nomore4s (1 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

If the meeting does go ahead it will be pretty nasty, you'd think there will be plenty of emotions from some of the retail investors.


----------



## brty (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

It has taken long enough for the media to get their collective heads around this,  but this type of coverage is accelerating. The politicians will be pursued by the media shortly for their thoughts. It will be a brave politician who sides with the corporates (to bankrupt the M&D's) in this mess.

Will MQG be able to use their 8% in the vote?? I is sort of like a director voting themselves a pay rise. I would have thought abstaining from the vote was appropriate.

brty


----------



## James Austin (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Sunder said:


> Now if Bolton's actions are found to be fraudulent, and a court rules that reasonable person would have known at the time that his actions would be fraudulent, then you are in fact a knowing party to fraud  - and it is no longer arms length.






Prospector said:


> I do wonder how a judge could determine what a reasonable person would do; and whether Bolton's actions in any way constituted anything illegal. His first purchase was certainly entirely legitimate (although not necessarily wise)  Is it illegal to purchase shares in a company to gain a controlling hand to determine its future?  Which is really all that Bolton is presumed to have done.





if you mean by your post, sunder, that it is some how fradulent of Bolton to buy more of BCSCA with the intention of closing the company down, . . . . I wonder!

*is it illegal to have such intention?*


Bolton's behaviour is synonymous (perhaps) with the behaviour of large companies across the globe who routinely buy other companies, lay-off 1000s of workers, restructure and change the face and format of the original company so that it bares little resemblance to that original company. 

The buyer has simply executed their own interests, which it has the right to do by virtue of ownership. Doesnt it? 

Isnt Bolton doing the same?

Is it illegal to buy large amounts of stock with the intention of closing the company down, . . . or is that just business!?


----------



## Sunder (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Let's simplify it. 

You PAY someone to take a liability off your hands.

Does this sound to a reasonable person to be a normal off-market share transaction?


----------



## James Austin (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Sunder said:


> Let's simplify it.
> 
> You PAY someone to take a liability off your hands.
> 
> Does this sound to a reasonable person to be a normal off-market share transaction?




i've spent years paying brokers to take liabilities off my hands, they willingly do so, and willingly pass the stock onto another unsuspecting customer . . . its just business


----------



## sails (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Sunder said:


> Let's simplify it.
> 
> You PAY someone to take a liability off your hands.
> 
> Does this sound to a reasonable person to be a normal off-market share transaction?




But then what most would consider "normal" shares don't come with a future negative value and with no apparent warning about the massive debt before the point of sale.  

Everything I have read so far seems to indicate that Bolton had a plan (rightly or wrongly is up to the courts) to stay solvent at the time he acquired the shares.  Again, all conjecture!  The lawyers will have a field day arguing all these finer points...


----------



## steve999 (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Sunder said:


> Let's simplify it.
> 
> You PAY someone to take a liability off your hands.
> 
> Does this sound to a reasonable person to be a normal off-market share transaction?




Umm, yes?

I wouldn't pay somebody to take an asset of my hands but a liability I might.

Isn't that the point? The shares were originally valued at $3, now valued at < $2... So what's wrong?


----------



## Sunder (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



steve999 said:


> Umm, yes?
> 
> I wouldn't pay somebody to take an asset of my hands but a liability I might.
> 
> Isn't that the point? The shares were originally valued at $3, now valued at < $2... So what's wrong?




Wait, so they're worth $2? You just sold an asset then.  Can't have it both ways. 

Imagine doing this:

Buy a Ferrari, and encumber it with a loan. 

Let it depreciate so that the market value of the car is less than the amount owing

Pay your friend to take it off you legally for $1 - make sure you pay your RTA transfer fees legally.

Your friend then makes no payments on the loan.

As the loan was secured against the car, which you no longer own, the loan company has nothing on you. Your friend loses the car, but that's okay, he only paid $1 for it, and even received a payment from you to take the car.

Can you imagine getting up before a judge and swearing on the bible or the Aussie flag, that you thought what you did was both legal and ethical? Man you have a twisted sense of right and wrong. 

And let me guess - we're going to get back to "You can't buy a $500,000 loan on a ferrari for $500 and a click of a mouse button" argument. While that is less than ideal, two wrongs still don't make a right in my eyes.


----------



## freddy2 (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Sunder said:


> Let's simplify it.
> 
> You PAY someone to take a liability off your hands.
> 
> Does this sound to a reasonable person to be a normal off-market share transaction?




Yes, given the situation with these securities. If they were able to be traded on the ASX at a negative price (ie pay someone to take shares) they would be. Consider that if after the next payment is made the shares will trade at 60c (for example) then paying someone 40c before the installment is due to take the securities off your hands would be fair.


----------



## Sunder (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



freddy2 said:


> Yes, given the situation with these securities. If they were able to be traded on the ASX at a negative price (ie pay someone to take shares) they would be. Consider that if after the next payment is made the shares will trade at 60c (for example) then paying someone 40c before the installment is due to take the securities off your hands would be fair.




That's actually a great answer.

But now the legal and ethical question comes down to it, that if you're going to do this, and you have, or reasonably should have an idea that the person is intending to default on the liability - even if they claim otherwise - are you responsible for partaking in that transaction?

I'm saying yes, other people are saying no.


----------



## steve999 (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Sunder said:


> Wait, so they're worth $2? You just sold an asset then.  Can't have it both ways.
> 
> Imagine doing this:
> 
> ...





If I sold or paid somebody to take the ferrari then I still owe the finance company. Or if the finance company actually owns the ferrari then I can't sell it without their permission... So I don't think the example is the same.

In the BCSCA case we have something like the following:
Let's says BCSCA shares are now worth $1.50
Person A owns 50,000 shares. They need to come up with $100,000 to keep the shares which they don't have, so the shares are a liability.
They do have $25,000. So they can give Person B $25,000 plus the 50,000 shares.

Person B now has 50,000 shares and owes $100,000. He pays $100,000 and for the price of $75,000 has 50,000 shares worth $75,000.

So what's wrong with that?


----------



## Sunder (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



steve999 said:


> If I sold or paid somebody to take the ferrari then I still owe the finance company. Or if the finance company actually owns the ferrari then I can't sell it without their permission... So I don't think the example is the same.
> 
> In the BCSCA case we have something like the following:
> Let's says BCSCA shares are now worth $1.50
> ...




There is nothing wrong with that. 

But if you knew the other person didn't have $75,000, and had no intention of paying $75,000, and is just going to enjoy your $25,000 and skip the country,  are you culpable?

My argument is yes. 

Considering the press Bolton had before the off-market transfers happened, it was pretty clear that Bolton was going for a Heads I win, Tails you lose arrangement. He never had, and never will have the millions required, and for him its either I close down the company (I win), or else Macquarie pays the bill (You lose).

Edit: BTW, I believe it is possible to get loans that have no recourse available, if you default. At least it used to be... A friend had one. And the RTA will still allow a car to be legally transfered even if it is encumbered... But the encumberance has priority, so the finance company can take it off the new owner.


----------



## sails (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Sunder said:


> ...I'm saying yes, other people are saying no.




That will all be answered in due course by the courts. 

A quote that caught my eye from this article:  http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25271039-3122,00.html



> _But Justice Robson said the court "guards jealously" the rights of citizens who come before it to be heard.
> "Mr Sifris contends that Wonate seeks to be heard on behalf of mum-and-dad shareholders," he said.
> "This court will not deny citizens that right."_




Oh and another interesting article: http://business.brisbanetimes.com.a...-a-role-in-instalment-mess-20090331-9ibx.html


----------



## steve999 (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Sunder said:


> There is nothing wrong with that.
> 
> But if you knew the other person didn't have $75,000, and had no intention of paying $75,000, and is just going to enjoy your $25,000 and skip the country,  are you culpable?
> 
> ...




I find it hard to say that the "seller" is culpable. Certainly it is possible, but a random person selling to Bolton I wouldn't count as being culpable. People generally talk about buyer beware, as the buyer is the person who will get any liability associated with the transaction/shares. If Bolton can't afford the payments then he is the one that will be punished. It makes it difficult if the seller must get a sworn statement from the buyer that they can afford the extra payments.

Also, Brisconnections/Macquarie would have known the risks of selling partly paid shares to "mum & dad" investors, ie, they may not have the cash to pay the rest... Not that that is an excuse for other people's actions, but if you can reverse one transaction why not reverse them all they way up the chain until the shares are with their original owners?

As others mentioned, ASX is "limiting" the market by not allowing shares to be traded with negative values, so off market transactions are the only means to do this type of sale.

As for car loans, I've never had one so not sure of the exact details. My understanding was that if the loan was secured against the car, the finance company held the title and so you couldn't just sell the car to somebody else... As for giving somebody a non-recourse loan for a car


----------



## sails (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Sunder said:


> ...But if you knew the other person didn't have $75,000, and had no intention of paying $75,000, and is just going to enjoy your $25,000 and skip the country,  are you culpable?...




Sunder, under this scenario, I agree with you  that the answer is yes.  But when did Bolton say that?  Do you have a link?  

From what I read, I understood he was a major shareholder at the time who intended to change the company structure so that the funds would not be required.  The courts will decide on this matter, however, this is not abnormal corporate behaviour.  When share prices drop to ridiculously low levels, there is always a threat of takeover.  It remains a mystery to me why nothing was done to stop unfunded people purchasing these shares.

I have never personally read anywhere where Bolton said he was going to be bankrupted for sure.   Please correct me if I have understood it incorrectly...


----------



## AlterEgo (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Sunder said:


> But now the legal and ethical question comes down to it, that if you're going to do this, and you have, or reasonably should have an idea that the person is intending to default on the liability - even if they claim otherwise - are you responsible for partaking in that transaction?
> 
> I'm saying yes, other people are saying no.




No, of course not! That's entirely the buyers responsibility. Bolton doesn't need to have the money anyhow, as he has an arrangement to sell them before the payment is due. It's not up to the seller to question the buyer of what his motives are before the transaction. That's completely absurd!

People buy and sell things all the time without having the money to buy it outright. Houses for example. If I buy a house worth $500K with my $20K, do I need to buy with the intention of paying it all off? Does the seller need to check my finances before he sells to me to check if I have the money to pay it all off? Of course not! I could be buying with the intention of reselling it at a later date. I'd never need the $500K to do this. Could buy and sell the house with only ever paying out $20K or so. What Bolton is doing is no different.


----------



## ghotib (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Couple of pieces from Business Spectator that might explain some of the buying in BCSCA. The first one talks about who, the second is more about why. I long ago lost track of the ins and outs of all this and I can't comment on how realistic Gottliebson's discussion is. It's fun for those of us who are not involved though. 

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...e-in-BrisConne-$pd20090331-QN3N2?OpenDocument

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ections-pd20090402-QPSUN?OpenDocument&src=sph

Ghoti


----------



## cuttlefish (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



steve999 said:


> Also, Brisconnections/Macquarie would have known the risks of selling partly paid shares to "mum & dad" investors, ie, they may not have the cash to pay the rest...





This is an excellent point - using Sunder's logic - BCS should not have been allowed to issue the stock in the first place without first checking that the original purchasing shareholders could pay (i.e from the original public issue).

There is no encumberance on these instalments, no loan 'against them'. The liabiliity lies with the registered owner at the time the instalment falls due.  It could be argued that there is no liability on the instalments until the instalments actually fall due.

Also an arms length transaction to me is any transaction where there is no commercial or personal relationship between the two parties.  If the two parties are acting independantly then neither party is responsible for the actions of the other party as far as I can see.  If this sort of obligation (to check out the finances of a buyer before selling) is going to be applied, then the same rules should be applied to transactions facilitated via the ASX - i.e. if private sellers have this responsibility to check out buyers credentials then ASX facilitated trades should also carry the same obligation otherwise there is a double standard.

Also Sunder I can't believe you are suggesting someone should elect not to sell their stock to somebody on the basis of comments in a newspaper article      Boy the commercial world would be in a tizz if we got to that sort of stupidity.

If an independant party chooses to make an offer and buy the shares without coersion or any prior relationship with the seller then why should the seller be liable for the purchasers future actions or intents - its a bone fide sale to my mind.  (I'm not a lawyer, accountant etc.).

If somene sells a house, and the purchaser lied on their income statment to obtain the bank finance for the purchase, does the seller have any responsibility for this after settlement?  Of course not, the whole business world would collapse if this sort of idiocy was introduced.

The reality is that BCS, by putting this product into a publicly traded market place with no audit of who was becoming holders - was simply doing a bad job of managing the 'loans' they made to the original investors.  If they were smart they would have restricted/suspended trading in the units at a higher price so that they didn't end up with this situation where they have 'loaned' the instalment payments to people who cannot pay.   

BCS doesn't seem willing to take any responsibility for the state of affairs, neither does Macquarie who's brainchild the product was in the first place (and who were happy to offload to unwitting retail buyers last year but now that those buyers have found a voice, they come back in and repurchase a tranche to block those same unwitting investors).


----------



## newpalm (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Gets more & more interesting, Bolton just WON the court case:

http://business.watoday.com.au/business/rebel-bolton-wins-briscon-claim-20090402-9kkn.html


----------



## sails (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



newpalm said:


> Gets more & more interesting, Bolton just WON the court case:
> 
> http://business.watoday.com.au/business/rebel-bolton-wins-briscon-claim-20090402-9kkn.html




Well, isn't that interesting  
But it's only one hurdle crossed for unit holders - imagine there will be a few more to go...


----------



## investorpaul (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

I wonder if Macbank or other related parties will buy even more BCSCA now to try and block vote. Obviously Macbank has 8% already but they might want to increase it just to be on the safe side.


----------



## Sunder (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



newpalm said:


> Gets more & more interesting, Bolton just WON the court case:
> 
> http://business.watoday.com.au/business/rebel-bolton-wins-briscon-claim-20090402-9kkn.html




It'd be interesting to see if parties with a vested interest in seeing that the project remains an ongoing concern (primarily Macquarie) have enough stocks to block a motion to wind down.


----------



## Sunder (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



cuttlefish said:


> This is an excellent point - using Sunder's logic - BCS should not have been allowed to issue the stock in the first place without first checking that the original purchasing shareholders could pay (i.e from the original public issue). ...




Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying that you have to check the solvency or ability to pay for the person you're selling to. 

I'm saying the fact that Bolton has gone in the press to already say that he cannot pay the XX Millions but is yet wanting to buy more shares, destroys that arms length, because you know about him and his situation. 

If you sell to him, and it's later found that he's commiting insurance fraud, essentially, and you knew that at the time, the sale may be reversed, because you knew.


----------



## steve999 (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Sunder said:


> I'm saying the fact that Bolton has gone in the press to already say that he cannot pay the XX Millions but is yet wanting to buy more shares, destroys that arms length, because you know about him and his situation.




But doesn't he have an option with somebody to sell those shares before the payments are due?


----------



## sails (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Sunder said:


> Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying that you have to check the solvency or ability to pay for the person you're selling to.
> 
> I'm saying the fact that Bolton has gone in the press to already say that he cannot pay the XX Millions but is yet wanting to buy more shares, destroys that arms length, because you know about him and his situation.
> 
> If you sell to him, and it's later found that he's commiting insurance fraud, essentially, and you knew that at the time, the sale may be reversed, because you knew.




LOL - but that's only half the story that's in the press.  How about quoting the rest of the press statements explaining how he planned NOT to become insolvent?  Surely, this is a bit different to selling to someone who is definitely going to be or is actually insolvent.

Sunder, sometimes I think you just like to stir - you really do know how to stir up the hornet's nests here 
It's either that or you have some financial vested interest even if it is not directly in share / unit holdings - is that so?

EDIT: If the reports are true that Macquarie have bought their units in a $2 shelf company - how does that fit into your interpretation of an arms length transaction?


----------



## AlterEgo (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Sunder said:


> I'm saying the fact that Bolton has gone in the press to already say that he cannot pay the XX Millions but is yet wanting to buy more shares, destroys that arms length, because you know about him and his situation.




Makes no difference. Bolton does NOT have any liability to pay XX millions, IF he sells before the installment is due, which he has already arranged to do. OR if he winds the company up. So there is NO LIABILITY on the shares RIGHT NOW, only when, or IF, the installment is ever required to be paid.


----------



## cuttlefish (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Sunder said:


> Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying that you have to check the solvency or ability to pay for the person you're selling to.
> 
> I'm saying the fact that Bolton has gone in the press to already say that he cannot pay the XX Millions but is yet wanting to buy more shares, destroys that arms length, because you know about him and his situation.
> 
> If you sell to him, and it's later found that he's commiting insurance fraud, essentially, and you knew that at the time, the sale may be reversed, because you knew.





You are saying that based on a newspaper article someone should decide whether or not to sell their stock to Bolton  - thats just absurd.  

Sellers have no more obligation to read newspaper articles about an independant party that wants to purchase their stock than they do to do any financial due dilligence on the purchaser.  As long as the purchaser is acting independantly to the buyer and there is no commercial or personal relationship then I can't see where there is any further obligation on the seller in relation to this.  (again I'm not a lawyer or accountant).


(disclosure - I don't hold BCSCA).


----------



## Absolutely (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



cuttlefish said:


> You are saying that based on a newspaper article someone should decide whether or not to sell their stock to Bolton  - thats just absurd.
> 
> Sellers have no more obligation to read newspaper articles about an independant party that wants to purchase their stock than they do to do any financial due dilligence on the purchaser.  As long as the purchaser is acting independantly to the buyer and there is no commercial or personal relationship then I can't see where there is any further obligation on the seller in relation to this.  (again I'm not a lawyer or accountant).
> 
> ...




I agree, there's no obligation on a seller to assess or make themselves familiar with the financial position of the purchaser. It's the purchaser who has to fulfil an obligation once the contract is made.

Sunder is talking bollocks.


----------



## brty (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Sunder,

According to your arguments, it would be illegal to sell to MQG's $2 company because that entity is known to not have the assets required.

I cannot remember one Kerry Packer checking out the financials of Alan Bond before he sold the Nine Network for $1B. Nor do I recall any undoing of the transaction because Bond could not afford it. The words "you only get one Alan Bond in your lifetime" come to mind.

brty


----------



## sails (2 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



brty said:


> Sunder,
> 
> According to your arguments, it would be illegal to sell to MQG's $2 company because that entity is known to not have the assets required....





I don't think Sunder wants to talk about that - but if he does, it will be interesting to see if he justifies something that he might otherwise consider fraudulent.


----------



## cuttlefish (3 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Good to see that ASIC is getting involved in this now.  

http://business.smh.com.au/business...roup-over-disastrous-float-20090402-9l33.html

I think the results of this could start to get very interesting.  The directors of this company appear to have forgotten that one of their primary roles as managers of a business on behalf of the owners  (the shareholders/unitholders) is to maximise returns for those owners. To put it subtly, sending shareholders/unitholders into bankruptcy isn't consistent with this goal. 

If they liked the business model so much they always had the option of buying up the stock themselves.   They also had the option of suspending trading of the stock at a higher price point in order to protect their financing structure.


The arrogant disregard for the situation unwitting purchasers found themselves in, as well as the apparently misleading scare tactics utilised in 'fact sheets' as well as inconsistent information about the way they've communicated the extent of this liability to shareholders  is unlikely to gain much public sypathy.  I'm critical of ASIC for not getting involved earlier, but history has shown that when ASIC does get involved in a situation they tend not to pull punches if there is evidence of wrongdoings.  

Looking forward to seeing how this all unfolds.


----------



## Prospector (3 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

ASIC at last have started to confirm what many of us here have thought.  Just because BCSCA state that something will be enforced, does not mean that it can be enforced.  Guess their bully boy tactics and threats dont work with ASIC!


----------



## Absolutely (3 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



cuttlefish said:


> Good to see that ASIC is getting involved in this now.
> 
> http://business.smh.com.au/business...roup-over-disastrous-float-20090402-9l33.html
> 
> ...




Well said.

I have won some work on the project and if the job stops soon, my company will be out of pocket a few $. However I really don't like the way Brisconnections have handled this whole debacle. There were ways and means of preventing this situation and Brisconnections chose not to act when they clearly needed to. Trevor Rowe has an AM for services to Investment Banking. He should return it now for this dis-service to retail investors, which he has overseen.


----------



## cuttlefish (3 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Absolutely said:


> Trevor Rowe has an AM for services to Investment Banking.




Well its certainly been apparent where he sides during this saga!




> I have won some work on the project and if the job stops soon, my company will be out of pocket a few $. However I really don't like the way Brisconnections have handled this whole debacle. There were ways and means of preventing this situation and Brisconnections chose not to act when they clearly needed to.




Yes this is the unfortunate result of an inadequate response earlier in the situation.  The project itself, which would probably be profitable in the long run and a benefit to the Brisbane community may be suspended or shelved, putting people out of work and causing pain to suppliers and contractors.

There are numerous avenues that could have been taken when it became obvious that the stock price was falling to levels where retail buyers were unlikely to be able to service their instalment commitment.  They could also have been far more proactive early on in the piece in communicating the extent of the instalment liability and its binding nature. That may not have 'served' Macquarie very well though.  

A well connected person with contacts in banking, government and a seat on the board of the ASX was in a position to take a much more constructive and proactive approach to this situation much earlier in the piece.


----------



## sails (3 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Here's a link to the transcript from Lateline Business on bcs last night:  
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/200904/s2533735.htm


----------



## sails (3 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

This post https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=416801#post416801 is an example of the sort of education required by option traders before being allowed to access options online, let alone trade them.  It illustrates what I have been going on about in the other thread...


----------



## drsmith (3 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

ASIC has raised the question as to whether a 50% vote is sufficient for the wind up resolution (today's AFR p43).


----------



## Macquack (3 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



drsmith said:


> ASIC has raised the question as to whether a 50% vote is sufficient for the wind up resolution (today's AFR p43).




Dont ASIC know the answer to that question?

I thought it would require at least 75% being a "special resolution" rather than an "extraordinary resolution"


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Any retail investor, so called mums and dads,  who has bought a five letter stock such as B C S C A without investigating why it has 5 letters and not the usual three is a mug, unless they have an ulterior motive for doing so.

I have little sympathy for their plight.

BCSCA is a doggie at present.

Assets flow from the lazy or incompetent to the industrious or smart.

Such is life.

gg


----------



## Prospector (4 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Except GG, the BCSCA has been a unique 'five letter' share.  Never seen anything like it.


Most five letter shares dont come with a compulsory Instalment payment later; if you decide not to pay the instalment then it simply lapses (eg FMSOA) and you only lose your initial outlay.

The project sounded very worthwhile; it was infrastructure in a growth area of Australia.  And the case for purchasing into it was excellent, at the IPO!

However, very quickly the share price fell from $1 to 1 cent.  Not a problem usually except at that rate for only $600 you could pick up hundreds of thousands of them.  Again, not a problem, except for that Instalment of $1million which you have now accumulated because the price was so low.

Again, not necessarily a biggie, you would normally sell them.  But as soon as all this became more widely known, there were NO BUYERS!

 The global financial crisis - no-one was doing anything much.

Truly a series of unique events.  We have already gone into the 'do we or dont we' sympathise with them at ASF but that has long since gone.  We have moved on since then.


----------



## Struzball (4 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Any retail investor, so called mums and dads,  who has bought a five letter stock such as B C S C A without investigating why it has 5 letters and not the usual three is a mug, unless they have an ulterior motive for doing so.




However, this was a stock aimed at mums and dads with it's promised high dividend yield and the nature of the company.

So it was irresponsible of BrisConnections in the first place to put conditions like they did on the stocks.


----------



## drsmith (4 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Macquack said:


> Dont ASIC know the answer to that question?
> 
> I thought it would require at least 75% being a "special resolution" rather than an "extraordinary resolution"



It appears the type of resolution is the arguing point.



> _Mr Bolton said the voting requirement to pass the wind-up resolution was unclear.
> 
> ASIC, he said, was contending that the Corporations Act required an extraordinary resolution, or the approval of at least 50 per cent of investors eligible to vote, while the BrisConnections constitution called for a special resolution._




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25285714-36418,00.html


----------



## cuttlefish (4 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Assets flow from the lazy or incompetent to the industrious or smart.




You have assets don't you Garpal?  Guess its the exception that proves the rule.


----------



## freddy2 (4 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Assets flow from the lazy or incompetent to the industrious or smart.





I'm sure many fraudsters and conmen rationalise their actions this way.


----------



## awg (4 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Prospector said:


> Except GG, the BCSCA has been a unique 'five letter' share.  Never seen anything like it.




i reckon TLSCA would have led to a degree of compacency by some buyers?


----------



## drsmith (5 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

The following interview between Rob Ferguson (chariman of the legal firm IMF) and Alan Kohler on ABC's Inside Business may be of interest. In it Rob Ferguson suggests that BCSCA might be worth around minus $1.50 per share.

http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/content/2009/s2535204.htm


----------



## roofa (6 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Just gone into trading halt.
????


----------



## investorpaul (6 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

The announcement says that they are in a trading halt to stop people selling their shares on the mistaken belief that doing so would remove the liability???

How is that meant to work? If you sell on market you cant possibly be made to pay the installment. 

BCSCA also say that a trading halt is necessary to stop "market disruption" a bit late, it cant go any lower.


----------



## Absolutely (6 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



investorpaul said:


> The announcement says that they are in a trading halt to stop people selling their shares on the mistaken belief that doing so would remove the liability???
> 
> How is that meant to work? If you sell on market you cant possibly be made to pay the installment.
> 
> BCSCA also say that a trading halt is necessary to stop "market disruption" a bit late, it cant go any lower.




These blokes have completely lost the plot.


----------



## Prospector (6 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

So are BCSCA  trying to imply that even selling shares on the open market wont remove people from the liability?     How can the ASX let them halt trading now when it did nothing when this was all unfolding.  Too damn late!


----------



## investorpaul (6 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



> there is a real risk that some unitholders who may not intend to meet the second installment may attempt to trade their stapled units mistakenly believing that this enables them to escape the obligation to pay the second installment due on 29 April




That is a quote from the ASX release. I read it as saying selling your shares on through the ASX would not remove the liability. Therefore they have been placed in a trading halt to stop last ditched attempts by unitholders to offload stock. 

How do others interpret it?


----------



## sails (6 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Prospector said:


> So are BCSCA  trying to imply that even selling shares on the open market wont remove people from the liability?     How can the ASX let them halt trading now when it did nothing when this was all unfolding.  Too damn late!




Seems like the rules are being changed on the run.  Perhaps it has something to do with the meeting Bolton apparently had with Rowe: http://business.brisbanetimes.com.a...cret-meeting-with-chairman-20090403-9rn1.html 

If selling on the open market doesn't remove the liability - then perhaps the same logic could apply to the the mums and dads who bought them on the open market.


----------



## sails (6 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



investorpaul said:


> That is a quote from the ASX release. I read it as saying selling your shares on through the ASX would not remove the liability. Therefore they have been placed in a trading halt to stop last ditched attempts by unitholders to offload stock.
> 
> How do others interpret it?




Nothing makes much sense .  Here is an article titled "Good news for BrisConnections investors"  http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-...-brisconnections-investors-20090406-9tia.html


----------



## steve999 (6 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



sails said:


> If selling on the open market doesn't remove the liability - then perhaps the same logic could apply to the the mums and dads who bought them on the open market.




If selling the share doesn't remove the liability, then wtf?
I thought they were stapled securities? The liability and the share go together... Sounds like a "miscommunication" to me. How could the ASX ever list partially paid shares again if that could happen?


----------



## alphaman (6 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Prospector said:


> How can the ASX let them halt trading now when it did nothing when this was all unfolding.



Trevor Rowe is a director of ASX.


----------



## sails (6 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Here is another article titled "BrisConnections: underwriter seeking payment deal": http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews/idUSSYD46077020090406



> BrisConnections said on Monday it has received material information from one of its underwriters regarding a potential approach towards unitholders and their obligations to pay instalments.


----------



## Prospector (6 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

I think the halt is only about the timing of when you sell the Units.  You need to have sold them before the cut-off date; something to do with the delayed settlement basis.  They will stop trading just before that date so the shares are not in limbo when the cut-off date occurs.


----------



## drsmith (6 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Re-suspension of BCSCA till April 8

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews/idUSSYD46077020090406

Will Macquarie buy existing unitholders out for a token price ?


----------



## Absolutely (6 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



alphaman said:


> Trevor Rowe is a director of ASX.




Conflict of interest??


----------



## Sunder (6 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



brty said:


> Sunder,
> 
> According to your arguments, it would be illegal to sell to MQG's $2 company because that entity is known to not have the assets required.
> brty






sails said:


> I don't think Sunder wants to talk about that - but if he does, it will be interesting to see if he justifies something that he might otherwise consider fraudulent.




Sorry, lost this thread for a few days. A lot to catch up on.

In answer to your question, not the same scenario.

1. Macquarie bought directly from the official ASX market - arms length transaction.

2. Macquarie has not made any indication as to whether it will provide that $2 shelf company with sufficient funds to pay their liabilities. No indication that even if you were directly selling to them, that they were intending to default.

3. If they defaulted, they're paying the bill anyway.

Anyway, lots of reading to do. I'm behind on what's been happening the last couple days.


----------



## Sunder (6 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Prospector said:


> So are BCSCA  trying to imply that even selling shares on the open market wont remove people from the liability?     How can the ASX let them halt trading now when it did nothing when this was all unfolding.  Too damn late!





For people who don't know, it's not who's holding the hot potato on the PAYMENT date that matters, it's who's holding the hot potato on the DETERMINATION date...

Determination date was meant to be April 21st. Was it moved forward?


----------



## Prospector (6 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Hey Sunder, you have a lot of reading to catch up on.  I think BCSCA have closed the trading gap dates between sale date and determination date by asking for a market hold to allow for the three day settlement to be a non issue.  Cant remember the exact dates now.  Been reading too much and I am also too 

_As such, BrisConnections made an application to, and has received from, ASX agreement to suspend
quotation of the stapled units following the last day for trading the stapled units on a “call unpaid” basis.
This means that ASX will not offer a deferred settlement market in the second call paid stapled units.
As a result:
• ‘Second call paid’ units (ASX code: BCSCB) will be suspended from quotation commencing
Thursday 16 April 2009.
• Trading in ‘second call paid’ units (ASX code: BCSCB) will commence on Thursday 7 May 2009 on
a normal T+3 trading basis.
In effect, this means that instead of deferred settlement trading in BCSCB units during the period between 16 April and 6 May (both dates inclusive), there will be a short ‘gap’ or cessation in on‐market trading in BCS stapled units. BCMCL are of the view that this is necessary to try and avoid circumstances that could otherwise lead to considerable market disruption._

The last line is a doozy though!


----------



## sails (6 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Looks like new rules are to be implemented on 1st May: http://www.wabusinessnews.com.au/en-story/1/71589/New-rule-for-part-paid-investments-  - tiny excerpt below:


> ASX today said brokers will be required to obtain from retail clients a signed agreement that their clients are aware of responsibilities associated with partly paid securities.





also http://business.smh.com.au/business/briscon-instalment-mess-sparks-new-asx-rule-20090406-9uen.html


----------



## redgum (6 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Just been lurking here, enjoying the ride.
If you are interested the decision on ASI v BrisCon is here:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2009/128.html


----------



## wonderrman (6 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



redgum said:


> Just been lurking here, enjoying the ride.
> If you are interested the decision on ASI v BrisCon is here:
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2009/128.html




Interesting and lengthy reading.  I read from no. 70 to 125, gives lots of info on Bolton and his intentions. Worth a look. 

w


----------



## Warren Greenspan (6 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Hi all
First post. Have been reading the BCSCA story from the start. Truly horrifying.
I don't know if it's been posted but there's an article on 'the bull'.com about brokers now needing to get a signed agreement from punters before selling partly paid shares. Nick Sherry authourised it today in response to this debacle.


----------



## sails (7 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Here is the link to the official ASX announcement regarding the proposed changes:  http://www.asx.com.au/about/pdf/mr060409_partly_paid_newrule.pdf

Looks like it will be along the lines of current approvals required for options, warrants and futures:


> Market Participants of ASX (brokers) will be required to obtain from retail clients a signed agreement that their clients are aware they have a responsibility to obtain and read a copy of a prospectus, product disclosure statement or information memorandum produced by the product issuer when they are entering into a transaction to buy a partly paid security for the first time. Client agreement rules of this kind already exist for complex products such as options, futures and warrants.




These changes do not include partly paid securities in No Liability companies.  The reasoning is that holders of those securities can forfeit their shares if they are unable to pay.  Apparently, of the 18 partly paid securities listed on ASX, 13 are issued by No Liability companies leaving 5 affected by the new rules in the link above.

Certainly a step in the right direction for preventative purposes in the future.  Hopefully there will be a positive outcome for the current holders still caught who purchased without any such notification as that in the notice above.


----------



## sails (7 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

These are the other 4 partly paids out there:


> Apart from BrisConnections there are four entities with partly paids -- Multiplex Prime Property Fund, Westpac Office Trust, Solagran and Citadel Resources.




And it looks like the client will only need to sign one agreement with the broker and then they are free to trade in these securities when ever they want.  But at least they will have had a heads up.



> In future the first time a retail client buys a partly paid security the broker will be required to obtain a signed agreement that the client is aware of his or her responsibility to obtain and read a copy of the prospectus, PDS or information memorandum produced by the issuer.




Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25300007-16941,00.html


----------



## Enzyme (7 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

The proposal from Macquarie and other parties are outlined in this ASX release

Defaulting unitholders will forfiet theis shares, but no other action will be taken - but only if the windup motion is defeated.  Suprisingly Deutsche Bank are onboard with this.  More detail to follow with a more detailed ASX release tomorrow...


----------



## Macquack (7 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Enzyme said:


> The proposal from Macquarie and other parties are outlined in this ASX release
> 
> Defaulting unitholders will forfiet theis shares, but no other action will be taken - but only if the windup motion is defeated.  Suprisingly Deutsche Bank are onboard with this.  More detail to follow with a more detailed ASX release tomorrow...




Looks like Bolton and Byrnes may be left out in the cold.

No sympathy if those guys lose out, they are just parasitic opportunists.


----------



## drsmith (7 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Enzyme said:


> The proposal from Macquarie and other parties are outlined in this ASX release



The first thing that's obvious is that Macquarie and Nick Bolton were unable to reach agreement on a restructure.

Had the underwriters gone down this route months ago much of the current fiasco may have been avioded. It is extrordinary in the extreme that Brisconnections directors and the underwriters thought they would collect instalment monies from retail holders who purchased large chunks at a token share price.

It will be interesting to see in what proportion Macquarie and DB cover the instalment payments and whether it's in line with the original underwriting agreement. It will also be interesting to see if QIC pours more of it's capital down the drain come instalment time given they can now opt out.

The most important thing however is that it's good news at last for the retail holders.


----------



## Macquack (7 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



drsmith said:


> It will also be interesting to see if QIC pours more of it's capital down the drain come instalment time given they can now opt out.




I dont think the olive branch will be extended to QIC.

"Under the proposal Maccquarie and Deutsche would not require *retail BCS unitholders* to be pursued for the installment.......provided all resolutions to be put to the forthcoming BCS unitholder meeting are not passed."


----------



## drsmith (7 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

In terms of corporate law can such a concession be offered to one group of unitholders and not another or must it be offered uniformly to all unitholders ?


----------



## brty (8 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Sounds like this will go back to the courts if/when MQG differentiate between holders of units. I'm surprised that ASIC would allow such a deal.

It seems to me that what MQG are really worried about is this from todays age...



> Such a vote could trigger provisions in the company's banking covenants, allowing senior lenders, including ANZ, to withdraw more than $3.1 billion of finance for Brisbane's Airport Link, jeopardising the $4.8 billion project.




...which really means that the $270m could be small change in comparison to what they would otherwise be up for.

brty


----------



## drsmith (8 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

According to the following article from The Australian $2.9bn of bank finance is triggered with the payment of the upcoming instalment. That being the case Brisconnections don't currently have most of the money required to build the road. 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25265787-5018061,00.html

An updated financial statement will make interesting reading for both existing shareholders and nervous banks about to lend to the project. I note that the units have just gone from trading halt to suspension.

Are those banks now scrambling for the exit ?


----------



## drsmith (8 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Enzyme said:


> The proposal from Macquarie and other parties are outlined in this ASX release
> 
> Defaulting unitholders will forfiet theis shares, but no other action will be taken - but only if the windup motion is defeated.  *Suprisingly Deutsche Bank are onboard with this.*  More detail to follow with a more detailed ASX release tomorrow...



At the moment a day is a very long time in the life of Brisconnections.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20090408/pdf/31gzv6m7x7f3kw.pdf

Not happy with the last week's court decision, Macquarie is back in court trying to stop the wind up resolution being put to unitholders.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/qld-news/qld-court-may-stop-brisconn-vote-20090408-a0eu.html

Normal ???? trading of the units has resumed.


----------



## cuttlefish (8 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

What an absolute shambles that should never have gotten to the stage it did.  The product in its form (binding instalment payments) should probably never have made it in front of retail investors on a secondary market in the first place, and the ASX should have stepped into the situation before the price got so ridiculously out of hand.


But Macquarie made the bed ... they should lay in it imo.   They were happy to dump stock to retail investors that couldn't pay on-market last year, and they were happy to jump back in and buy some back when there was a threat to their control.  Doesn't seem to be any ethics or scruples involved at all - now seems like they are prepared to do a deal with retail investors while shafting bolton - when in all likelihood Macquarie wouldn't be offering any deals to anyone if bolton hadn't reared his head in the way he did.

The ASX and regulators need to accept some responsibility for this show even getting on the road though.  And the company itself - which also had plenty of opportunities to mediate some commonsense ground long ago but took a self serving aggressive approach instead. 

What an utter mess.


----------



## investorpaul (8 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Deutsche Bank Pulls the Pin on deal for Unit holders

Deutsche Bank has pulled the pin on a potential lifeline for BrisConnections


----------



## alphaman (8 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

Looks like Deutsche Bank sees BCS as toxic and simply wants to get rid of it. MQG on ther hand hand, seems to think toxic or not, the fees they can extract out of BCS will compensate for their costs.

By the way, has Capital Group made their intention known? It has been assumed that they will vote with MQG, why is that?


----------



## drsmith (8 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



cuttlefish said:


> What an absolute shambles that should never have gotten to the stage it did.



To summarise.

1) Holders of most of the units are unable to pay future instalments the first of which is due at the end of this month.

2) One of the underwriters (Deutsche Bank) is is trying to avoid it's obligations under the instalment underwriting.

3) There's ~$3bn of project finance due from the banks when the second instalment is paid. Today's announcement is not exactly going to inspire confidence within the banking syndicate.

Yes, it's one hell of a mess. It will be interesting to see at what point the Queensland Government is forced to step in.

EDIT: From Business Spectator.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ections-pd20090408-QWAXK?OpenDocument&src=sph


----------



## brty (9 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

I'm waiting for the movie about this to come out  If this saga was a work of fiction, nobody would bother with it because it is so far fetched.

Macquarie are so desperate for this to continue that they deliberately released a plan knowing that the co-underwriter did not agree, nor would support it, all in an attempt to have the M+D holders vote a certain way. 

From today's Age....



> Separately, Queensland Investment Corporation, which owns 9.98per cent of BrisConnections, declared it would not support resolutions to wind up the company and would vote against any such resolutions.
> 
> BrisConnections chairman Trevor Rowe is also chairman of QIC, but the company stated that all investment decisions were made independently of the board.
> 
> "QIC has a rigorous investment decision-making process to ensure it is independent from undue or improper influences,'' said managing director Doug McTaggart.




Surprise surprise 

 Who's interests are the QIC following?? This is certainly not in the interests of investment returns, so it must be some other agenda. Is the QIC a super fund of some sort or just an arm of the Govt??

It will be interesting on Tuesday if Bolton gets more than 50% but less than 75%, probably straight back to the courts. Then again, if he gets over 75%, the losers (Macquarie) will probably take it back to the courts. 

brty


----------



## freddy2 (9 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



brty said:


> Who's interests are the QIC following?? This is certainly not in the interests of investment returns, so it must be some other agenda. Is the QIC a super fund of some sort or just an arm of the Govt??




My exact thoughts when reading the article. No rational investor, which the QIC should be, can justify not trying to get out of paying the future installments since the payments will clearly exceed what is gained in return.


----------



## sails (9 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



freddy2 said:


> My exact thoughts when reading the article. No rational investor, which the QIC should be, can justify not trying to get out of paying the future installments since the payments will clearly exceed what is gained in return.




Not nice for clients of Qsuper - it's their funds.  While this is probably only a few drops from a big bucket, it still seems a very questionable investment.  We have some funds with Qsuper - not impressed.


----------



## drsmith (9 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



> "QIC has a rigorous investment decision-making process to ensure it is independent from undue or improper influences,'' said managing director Doug McTaggart.



We will stand naked in the bay, steadfast and resolute while Macquarie tries desperately to stop the tide going out with a leaky bucket and everyone else runs for the hills.


----------



## Absolutely (9 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



brty said:


> I'm waiting for the movie about this to come out  If this saga was a work of fiction, nobody would bother with it because it is so far fetched.
> 
> Macquarie are so desperate for this to continue that they deliberately released a plan knowing that the co-underwriter did not agree, nor would support it, all in an attempt to have the M+D holders vote a certain way.
> 
> ...




So Rowe is intimately involved with Briscon, QIC and ASX? Surely there are conflicts of interests going on here, especially given the whole thing has gone pear shaped. He needs to step down IMO.


----------



## Sunder (9 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



brty said:


> Who's interests are the QIC following?? This is certainly not in the interests of investment returns, so it must be some other agenda. Is the QIC a super fund of some sort or just an arm of the Govt??




What if QIC genuinely believe that the court is likely rule that even if the project is wound down, the call will still be made, to pay outstanding debts? Therefore, getting a long term future return (Which Super funds do aim for), is better than having to take the loss now, with no hope of future return? That would definitely be acting in the interests of their members.


----------



## drsmith (9 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



drsmith said:


> Not happy with the last week's court decision, Macquarie is back in court trying to stop the wind up resolution being put to unitholders.
> 
> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/qld-news/qld-court-may-stop-brisconn-vote-20090408-a0eu.html



Macquarie's application has been adjourned till 9am Tuesday morning, one hour before the start of the unitholder meeting.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25313735-3102,00.html


----------



## drsmith (9 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

The following article from The Australian offers some possible insight as to why Macquarie is still fighting tooth and nail to stop Bolton's resolutions being put to shareholders.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25310917-16941,00.html


----------



## Joe Blow (9 April 2009)

*Re: BSC - BrisConnections Unit Trusts*

The two threads dealing with BrisConnections have now been merged and renamed and relocated to the *Stocks A-H* forum.


----------



## freddy2 (9 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Sunder said:


> What if QIC genuinely believe that the court is likely rule that even if the project is wound down, the call will still be made, to pay outstanding debts?




There is enough doubt over this proposition (see statements by ASIC, DeutscheBank   lawyer, Bolton's lawyers) that they should at least test it in court - of course trying to argue that winding up the company does stop future installments. Even the judge in the Bolton case said that investors had every right to try and avoid the payment which the QIC should be doing in the long term best interests of their clients.


----------



## sails (9 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Sunder said:


> What if QIC genuinely believe that the court is likely rule that even if the project is wound down, the call will still be made, to pay outstanding debts? Therefore, getting a long term future return (Which Super funds do aim for), is better than having to take the loss now, with no hope of future return? That would definitely be acting in the interests of their members.




If it is such a great investment in it's present form, why would Macquarie sell it off with such gusto?  Then they only bought back 8% - possibly to buy voting power and apparently purchased them in a $2 shelf company. From where I sit, it doesn't look like Macquarie see much future in the returns - so why should QIC view it any differently?


----------



## Prospector (9 April 2009)

_Now the unitholders are in no man's land. If Macquarie and Deutsche Bank have failed to agree to a proposal by the time of the meeting, but are still negotiating, retail holders must decide whether to vote against all the resolutions (which is what Macquarie wants) without knowing whether their defeat would relieve them of any liability to meet the instalment._

Could this just be an elaborate ploy to prevent Bolton from succeeding in his plan to dismantle the company?  The retail investors decide not to agree to his proposal, then when the vote is over, Mac simply withdraw from negotiations?


----------



## drsmith (9 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



sails said:


> If it is such a great investment in it's present form, why would Macquarie sell it off with such gusto?  Then they only bought back 8% - possibly to buy voting power and apparently purchased them in a $2 shelf company. From where I sit, it doesn't look like Macquarie see much future in the returns - so why should QIC view it any differently?



QIC could be the Queensland Government's last line of defence before it has to step in with financial support of it's own.



Prospector said:


> Could this just be an elaborate ploy to prevent Bolton from succeeding in his plan to dismantle the company?  The retail investors decide not to agree to his proposal, then when the vote is over, Mac simply withdraw from negotiations?



Perhaps what's worrying Macquarie most is what might happen if Bolton is successful in removing the responsible entity as according to the above article from The Australian a 50% vote is required for this.


----------



## alphaman (9 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



drsmith said:


> QIC could be the Queensland Government's last line of defence before it has to step in with financial support of it's own.



i think this is the much more likely scenario. The weight of evidence points to a horribly conflicted QIC.


----------



## Sunder (9 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



sails said:


> If it is such a great investment in it's present form, why would Macquarie sell it off with such gusto?  Then they only bought back 8% - possibly to buy voting power and apparently purchased them in a $2 shelf company. From where I sit, it doesn't look like Macquarie see much future in the returns - so why should QIC view it any differently?




Stop putting words in my mouth. Where did I say it was a great investment?

All I said was given total loss forever, or loss now with a possibility of return in the future, QIC is likely to take the chance, because their investment horizon is longer.


----------



## sails (9 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



Sunder said:


> Stop putting words in my mouth. Where did I say it was a great investment?....




See in bold below - your quote...  My understanding is that "long term future return" or "great investment" could convey a similar general meaning. 



Sunder said:


> What if QIC genuinely believe that the court is likely rule that even if the project is wound down, the call will still be made, to pay outstanding debts? *Therefore, getting a long term future return (Which Super funds do aim for)*, is better than having to take the loss now, with no hope of future return? That would definitely be acting in the interests of their members.




And in the remainder of my post I was asking why QIC would want these when Macquarie and other institutions want no part of this investment (if the media reports are correct).


----------



## drsmith (9 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*

QIC will take a chance because it's owned by the Queensland Government and the latter does not want to find itself financing most of the equity for this project.


----------



## JAB_Charity (10 April 2009)

*BrisConnections charity outcome*

BrisConnections (BCSCA) units can be transfered to charity. See, for instance, this charity to donate units: http://www.Barrow.ORG.AU/


----------



## Sean K (10 April 2009)

*Re: BrisConnections charity outcome*

"AB_Charity;419454 - BrisConnections (BCSCA) units can be transfered to charity. See, for instance, this charity to donate units: http://www.Barrow.ORG.AU/"

Huh?

You serious?


----------



## jackson8 (10 April 2009)

*Re: BrisConnections charity outcome*



kennas said:


> "AB_Charity;419454 - BrisConnections (BCSCA) units can be transfered to charity. See, for instance, this charity to donate units: http://www.Barrow.ORG.AU/"
> 
> Huh?
> 
> You serious?




the plot thickens

not sure who to ring to make a movie on this one
stephen king , baz lurhman or maybe ian flemming would be more appropiate.


----------



## investorpaul (10 April 2009)

*Re: BrisConnections charity outcome*



kennas said:


> "AB_Charity;419454 - BrisConnections (BCSCA) units can be transfered to charity. See, for instance, this charity to donate units: http://www.Barrow.ORG.AU/"
> 
> Huh?
> 
> You serious?




That is unbelievable they specifically say they accept Brisconnection shares, they are either mad or believe that no company would ask a Charity to stump up millions of dollars.


----------



## Sean K (10 April 2009)

*Re: BrisConnections charity outcome*



investorpaul said:


> That is unbelievable they specifically say they accept Brisconnection shares, they are either mad or believe that no company would ask a Charity to stump up millions of dollars.



JAB Charity is a real philanthapist isn't he?

Interesting first post.

Maybe he'll be back to explain.

Or not.


----------



## Knobby22 (10 April 2009)

*Re: BrisConnections charity outcome*



investorpaul said:


> That is unbelievable they specifically say they accept Brisconnection shares, they are either mad or believe that no company would ask a Charity to stump up millions of dollars.




The truth is that this is a nightmare for Maquarie and they cannot have extensive TV coverage of people losing their houses due to their terribly designed float for which they were paid millions. They will have to cough up the money to avoid this. They have already said they will in effect. The charity is making a bet, if they win they might make a fair bit of cash, if they lose there will be no way for Maquarie to collect.

The whole thing is very amusing as long as you don't own any Brisconnection shares.


----------



## Sunder (10 April 2009)

*Re: Someone is accumulating BCSCA*



sails said:


> See in bold below - your quote...  My understanding is that "long term future return" or "great investment" could convey a similar general meaning.
> 
> And in the remainder of my post I was asking why QIC would want these when Macquarie and other institutions want no part of this investment (if the media reports are correct).




I don't see how you correlate those two together. I would never consider a 5 year term deposit at 4%pa a "great investment", but the returns are definitely there, and they are all definitely long term. 

A day trader might play with what remains out of Babcock and Brown subsidaries, but a super fund probably would have no desire to go near it. QIC and Macquarie have different objectives. QIC have probably been advised that the call will still go out, and if it's "likely" they have to pay the remaining $2, they may as well gamble on a return some time in the next 30 years before their members retire, rather than just pay the $2, and maybe get a few cents back after the debts have been paid.


----------



## JAB_Charity (10 April 2009)

*Re: BrisConnections charity outcome*



kennas said:


> "AB_Charity;419454 - BrisConnections (BCSCA) units can be transfered to charity. See, for instance, this charity to donate units: http://www.Barrow.ORG.AU/"
> 
> Huh?
> 
> You serious?




Yes -- the charitable trust is actively seeking BrisConnections units.  There are many complex dynamics in play with this stock -- and the $1 calls can be met with a potential market re-evaluation of the fundamentals of the units (driven by the prime long-term 45 year tollway concession), the charity's cash position and capacity to raise further donations before the 29 April final call -- and also trading out of the position.

David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust


----------



## Sunder (10 April 2009)

*Re: BrisConnections charity outcome*



kennas said:


> "AB_Charity;419454 - BrisConnections (BCSCA) units can be transfered to charity. See, for instance, this charity to donate units: http://www.Barrow.ORG.AU/"
> 
> Huh?
> 
> You serious?




Now this bit on their page was interesting:



> 2.  Market Value of BrisConnections Units after payment of next instalment.
> 
> Since the BrisConnections units commenced trading on ASX at $0.001 in October 2008, there have been three broker reports issued, the most recent on 29 January 2009.
> 
> The average fully paid target price of the three reports is $1.28 and the average DCF valuation is $1.80.




So if you could get them for less than 28c post second installment, they'd be considered good value? Did I read that right?


----------



## drsmith (10 April 2009)

*Re: BrisConnections charity outcome*



Knobby22 said:


> The truth is that this is a nightmare for Maquarie and they cannot have extensive TV coverage of people losing their houses due to their terribly designed float for which they were paid millions. They will have to cough up the money to avoid this. They have already said they will in effect. The charity is making a bet, if they win they might make a fair bit of cash, if they lose there will be no way for Maquarie to collect.
> 
> The whole thing is very amusing as long as you don't own any Brisconnection shares.




Politically, the Queensland Government won't be too keen on extensive TV coverage of people losing their houses either. This is something Macquarie could potentially use to encourage the Queensland Government (and/or QIC) to cough up some of the expected shortfall in the instalment payments.

Some idle speculation on how it might play out.

Firstly, Macquarie, DB and the Queensland Government will use the Easter period to negotiate an agreement about what proportion each is to contribute towards the expected shortfall in instalment payments (no rest for the wicked here). The minimum QIC will cough up will be for their 10% holding and possibly more (I'm sure Macquarie would love QIC to take on an increased equity stake). The Queensland Government may also directly contribute towards any shortfall but only after it has exhausted QIC as an option.

If the above reach agreement on their individual exposures to the instalment shortfall, the meeting resolutions then have to be dealt with. Bolton won't succeed with his resolution to wind up the trusts as more than 25% is in hands friendly to Macquarie. Getting over 50% to remove the responsible entity is a far more interesting proposition however. If achieved this could result in the winding up of the trusts if no suitable replacement is elected. 

I suspect that for the Queensland Govenment putting the project at risk will be seen as a potentially greater problem than dealing with questions about the independence of the judiciary. The court judgment on the resolutions on Tuesday morning will therefore fall in favour of Macquarie.

While not exactly ethical this is an outcome from most most involved would walk away relieved. The question then is to what extent the banking syndicate (lending ~$3bn) has lawyers going over their own loan agreements for the project.

Remember the above is only speculation. Whatever happens, tuesday will be an interesting day.


----------



## brty (10 April 2009)

Didn't Briscon really shoot themselves in the foot when they lost $425m in Interest rate swaps??

If this next instalment raises the full amount $320m? it all virtually disappears covering the existing losses. If Briscon is meant to be stumping up $1b with the rest borrowed, how can they do this with only $600m left from the 3 payments??
(Assuming of course no blowouts in costs)

In my mind, this is worth a lot less than 28c after this next instalment is paid, as the company will have to go after further funds in the future from other sources (probably equity/equity partner). Given current conditions, they will pay a high price in equity terms to gain this new money.

Stumping up $2 more dollars per each current share has a negative value in discounted cashflow terms for the future. Any institution that votes for anything other than winding up the company is not looking out for the interests of their investors (except maybe Macquarie who are/could be, up for more dollars if it does collapse) and I would expect a few directors to be hoping nothing eventuates from their decisions.

brty


----------



## JAB_Charity (11 April 2009)

*BrisConnections -- 25.04% voting-block*

As at close of BrisConnections (BCSCA) trading on THU 9 April 2009 there is a 25.04% quasi-block holding as follows:

8.06% Macquarie Group Limited and controlled bodies corporate
7.00% Capital Group Companies Inc
9.98% Queensland Investment Corporation (QIC)

If voted as a block this 25.04% is sufficient to defeat the required 75% of votes for the following Special Resolutions (at the 10am 14 April 2009 EGM):

PART A
Resolution 1
That the BrisConnections Holding Trust and the BrisConnections Investment Trust commence to be wound up on the next business day following the date this resolution is passed.

PART B

Resolution 2
That the constitutions of the BrisConnections Holding Trust and the BrisConnections Investment Trust be amended by inserting a new article 9.4A. [payment of the 5.95 cents distribution]

Resolution 3
That article 4.6(a) of the constitutions of the BrisConnections Holding Trust and the BrisConnections Investment Trust be amended by adding at the end of that article the words "and will do so on the Resolution of members".

[note: Resolution 4 is not a special resolution -- see below]

Resolution 5
That article 11.3 of the constitutions of the BrisConnections Holding Trust and the BrisConnections Investment Trust be amended by deleting in its entirety the sentence beginning "Subject to the Corporations Act".
[including performance of obligations in the Transaction Documents to build and operate the Brisbane Airport toll road]

----------------------------------------

The other resolutions are Ordinary Resolutions -- only requiring greater than 50% (majority) of the vote:

Resolution 4
That the members resolve to postpone the payment date for the instalment due by members on 29 April 2009 until 29 January 2010.
[note: Resolution 4 is arguably contingent on Special Resolution 3 - requiring 75% vote]

Resolution 6
That BrisConnections Management Company Limited be removed as the responsible entity.

Resolution 7
That a replacement responsible entity be appointed immediately after the meeting at which this regulation is passed and if a replacement is not then available or capable of appointment at that time then an application will be made to the court in accordance with the Corporation Act to appoint a temporary responsible entity.

David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://www.barrow.org.au/


----------



## Prospector (11 April 2009)

Hi David
At risk of hijacking this thread, I have now looked at Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust website. It seems that you are offering the 'investors' a lifeline, but also see this as a long term investment decision for the Trust.  But also have access to significant resources if you are able to meet the instalment demand.  Maybe all the posters here have made other moves with their shares, but there may still be some who are interested in them.
All the best.


----------



## JAB_Charity (11 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> Hi David
> ...Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust website. It seems that you are offering the 'investors' a lifeline, but also see this as a long term investment decision for the Trust...




Hello Prospector,

We operate solely for charitable purposes -- including the relief of poverty, the relief of the needs of the aged, the relief of sickness or distress, the advancement of religion, the advancement of education, other purposes beneficial to the community, and the provision of child care services on a non-profit basis.

If the donation of shares (BCSCA units, for instance) to our charitable trust alleviates some stress on the part of retail investors then we welcome that outcome broadly in alignment with out mission -- but it is the sole charitable purpose of the trust to which we are committed.

Amongst other investment opportunities, it is the view of The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust that the BrisConnections (BCSCA) Units are attractive assets to acquire by way of share transfer gift.

As we have stated in a previous post: There are complex dynamics at play with BCSCA.  The $1 calls can potentially be met by a market re-evaluation of the fundamentals of units (driven by the long-term 45 year toll road concession), the charity's cash position and capacity to raise further donations before the 29 April final call -- and we may also trade out.

In the view of our charity, this also accords with Justice Robson's recent decision Re Australian Style Investments Pty Ltd [2009] VSC 128 (6 April 2009) 66 at [225]:



> The obligation to pay an instalment is only imposed on those unit holders identified as being registered on 29 April 2009. No obligation arises out of being a unit holder as such.  The obligation only arises if the person is a unit holder on a certain day.  Being a unit holder does not by itself give rise to any contingent liability to pay any instalment.  The liability is not sourced from the fact that some months earlier before the instalment date the person held units.  The liability is solely sourced from the person being a unit holder on the instalment day.





David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://www.barrow.org.au


----------



## drsmith (11 April 2009)

JAB_Charity said:


> Amongst other investment opportunities, it is the view of The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust that the BrisConnections (BCSCA) Units are attractive assets to acquire by way of share transfer gift.
> 
> As we have stated in a previous post: There are complex dynamics at play with BCSCA.  The $1 calls can potentially be met by a market re-evaluation of the fundamentals of units (driven by the long-term 45 year toll road concession), the charity's cash position and capacity to raise further donations before the 29 April final call -- and we may also trade out.



I'll start with the last point first.

You will only have up to Wednesday April 16 to trade out of BCSCA before they cease trading. Assuming the units are in trading halt all day Tuesday, that leaves one day. 

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20090406/pdf/31gy4srth6dbtq.pdf

There are also currently no buyers for the units.

With regard to any market re-evaluation do you think this is going to occur between now and when BCSCB start trading (May 7) ?
 From a pure investment perspective it would be better to let someone else pay the $1 instalment and buy BCSCB when they start trading on May 7. You might be able to buy them for $0.25 or perhaps even $0.001.

I don't know anything about the tax status of charitable trusts and whether there's something to be gained from that perspective but from a pure investment perspective what you are doing does not make sense. You may relieve some retail investors of their obligations but then what about the trust's obligations under the $1 call. If the underwriters do choose to relieve retail holders of their instalment obligations (which I suspect they will in the end anyway), will your charity be clssified as a retail holder under such a scheme ?
 Your charity  may well have a fight on it's hands to avoid the upcoming instalment liability associated with the units.


----------



## JAB_Charity (11 April 2009)

Thankyou for your response drsmith.  You make some good points for us to clarify from our point of view.



drsmith said:


> You will only have up to Wednesday April 16 to trade out of BCSCA before they cease trading. Assuming the units are in trading halt all day Tuesday, that leaves one day.
> 
> http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20090406/pdf/31gy4srth6dbtq.pdf




Yes - that's quite right.  Wednesday [15th April] is the last day for all unitholders to trade BCSCA on the ASX.  And by extension the last day for us to potentially trade out of our own position on the ASX.

However, we are receiving donations by way of off-market transfers of shares.  You can see from your link that:



> Last day for accepting transfers [inc off-market] without second call money attached is WED 22 April 2009.




We can also transfer shares to other off-market buyers up until 22 April -- though we are currently focused on receiving off-market share transfers up to this date.

+with your second point:



drsmith said:


> With regard to any market re-evaluation do you think this is going to occur between now and when BCSCB start trading (May 7) ?
> From a pure investment perspective it would be better to let someone else pay the $1 instalment and buy BCSCB when they start trading on May 7. You might be able to buy them for $0.25 or perhaps even $0.001.




Well for every investor these sorts of decisions are a matter of opinion and judgment -- and investors have different views about the future.  Where the BrisConnections venture and ownership may end up is quite uncertain and so with this there is also quite a distribution of possible outcomes -- which is a longer way of saying that there is *risk* involved in holding the units.

We have set out our views on the BrisConnections  invest aspects at:

http://www.barrow.org.au/page/investment_strategy.html


That was helpful drsmith.  Are there any others points we can clarify?


David Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://www.barrow.org.au


----------



## Macquack (11 April 2009)

I agree with you drsmith. I dont know where this guy is coming from. 

Nobody thinks this is a good investment except for Bolton and Byrnes who are attempting some sort of scam to profit short term.

On the possibility of the underwriters relieving retail investors of their obligation for the $1 call, the units are then forfeited so what is the point of the exercise.


----------



## JAB_Charity (11 April 2009)

Hello Macquack



Macquack said:


> ...On the possibility of the underwriters relieving retail investors of their obligation for the $1 call, the units are then forfeited so what is the point of the exercise.




Yes -- that could be a good outcome for unitholders seeking to avoid the 29 April 2009 liability of $1 instalment, however, the preliminary deal proposed by Macquarie has not reached agreement.

See (I'm sure most are aware):

http://asx.com.au/asxpdf/20090408/pdf/31gzv6m7x7f3kw.pdf

Perhaps another deal will resurrect?  With or without voting conditions?

David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://www.barrow.org.au


----------



## drsmith (11 April 2009)

JAB_Charity said:


> That was helpful drsmith.  Are there any others points we can clarify?



Thank you David for the reply. One question does comes to mind.

How are you going to vote on the upcoming resolutions ?


----------



## JAB_Charity (11 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> Thank you David for the reply. One question does comes to mind.
> 
> How are you going to vote on the upcoming resolutions ?




I hope it does not come across as too coy to say that essentially we are watching developments closely.

We can, though, say that if a deal like the Macquarie proposal was resurrected -- waiving the $1 instalment on individual retail investors -- well, to the extent that such a deal was conditional again on certain resolutions being defeated -- then from a moral point of view we would not like to contribute to preventing a possible exit for retail investors.  Which is a long way of saying that we would not like to vote yes where yes means no to the likely avoidance of debt collection of retail investors – however, we do always act in pursuit of our solely charitable purpose.

Presently there is of course no such Macquarie resurrected agreement.

And we have discussed our view with Nicholas Bolton of ASI -- when he asked the same quite-reasonable question of us.


David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://www.barrow.org.au


----------



## drsmith (11 April 2009)

So, in short if the underwriters let retail unitholders off the hook prior to the vote you will vote against Nicholas Bolton's resolutions and if not you will support them.

Correct ?


----------



## Macquack (11 April 2009)

JAB_Charity said:


> .....  *Which is a long way of saying *that we would *not* like to vote *yes* where *yes* means *no* to the likely *avoidance* of debt collection of retail investors – *however*, we do always act in pursuit of our solely charitable purpose.




To many double-negatives in that statement, David.

I've read it twenty times and still don't get it.


----------



## JAB_Charity (11 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> So, in short if the underwriters let retail unitholders off the hook prior to the vote you will vote against Nicholas Bolton's resolutions and if not you will support them.
> 
> Correct ?




Well -- we'll all see how the situation develops.

There is of course, as we know, the decision of Justice Dutney to be handed down in the Supreme Court of Queensland on whether Macquarie may successfully injunct the 14 April meeting itself.  This slated for 9am before the 10am meeting. 

+I am flying from Melbourne to Brisbane on the following VirginBlue

Flight No DJ321 

DEPARTING 
Melbourne Virgin Blue T3 Terminal 
1000hr (10:00am), Sun 12 Apr 2009 

ARRIVING 
Brisbane Domestic Terminal 
1210hr (12:10pm), Sun 12 Apr 2009 


I will personally be on the ground at the 10am 14 April 2009 meeting.  I can be contacted on my Mbl 0448 778 737


The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust continues to receive donations of BrisConnections units by off-market transfer.


David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://barrow.org.au/


----------



## drsmith (11 April 2009)

JAB_Charity said:


> Well -- we'll all see how the situation develops.
> 
> There is of course, as we know, the decision of Justice Dutney to be handed down in the Supreme Court of Queensland on whether Macquarie may successfully injunct the 14 April meeting itself.  This slated for 9am before the 10am meeting.



There is only a limited number of ways the situation can develop.

Firstly, if Justice Dutney rules in favour of Macquarie and there's no vote on any of the resolutions, your charity along with all the retail holders are at the mercy of the underwriters. You won't be able to negotiate much from that position.

For the vote going ahead the original question stands.



> *If the underwriters let retail unitholders off the hook prior to the vote will you vote against Nicholas Bolton's resolutions and if not will you support his resolutions ?*








JAB_Charity said:


> +I am flying from Melbourne to Brisbane.....SNIP!.....Sun 12 Apr 2009



Will you be involved in discussions with other related parties prior to the meeting on Tuesday ?



JAB_Charity said:


> I will personally be on the ground at the 10am 14 April 2009 meeting.  I can be contacted on my Mbl 0448 778 737
> 
> The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust continues to receive donations of BrisConnections units by off-market transfer.



If it goes pear shaped for Nick Bolton he'll be able to hand you his off market transfer form in person.


----------



## dogby (11 April 2009)

JAB_Charity said:


> We operate solely for charitable purposes -- including the relief of poverty,
> 
> 
> ...
> ...




Call me naive, but taking on millions of dollars of potential liability doesn't to me seem consistent with what a charity should be doing. If you are lucky it may go well, if you are unlucky it might not. I would have thought that a charity is bound to not take unnecessary risks. Do you have a charter/constitution ?


----------



## oldblue (12 April 2009)

dogby said:


> Call me naive, but taking on millions of dollars of potential liability doesn't to me seem consistent with what a charity should be doing. If you are lucky it may go well, if you are unlucky it might not. I would have thought that a charity is bound to not take unnecessary risks. Do you have a charter/constitution ?




Indeed.
As a mere observer of the BCS saga I too am staggered that a charity and it's trustees would take on the risks involved in this situation. I would imagine that there is a lot more to the story than what is currently being told.


----------



## yttrium (12 April 2009)

Redgum gave a link to the ASI Vs Brisconnections judgement. I found these paragraphs interesting. They seem to be in conflict with earlier correspondence sent by brisconnections to unit holders.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2009/128.html


"224 Turning to the facts of this case, is there a present obligation on
ASI to pay an instalment which may become payable on the happening of
some future event? The obligation to pay an instalment is only imposed
on those unit holders identified as being registered on 29 April 2009.
No obligation arises out of being a unit holder as such. The obligation
only arises if the person is a unit holder on a certain day. Being a
unit holder does not by itself give rise to any contingent liability to
pay any instalment. The liability is not sourced from the fact that some
months earlier before the instalment date the person held units. The
liability is solely sourced from the person being a unit holder on the
instalment day.

234 As to the suggestion that ASI has engaged in some sort of improper
scheme by having units transferred to it by a deed of gift, I do not
accept that submission. I see nothing improper in a unit holder
transferring its units as alleged. The project imposes liability on
persons who are unit holders on a certain date. On the basis of the
submissions before me, I find there is no impropriety per se involved in
a person taking steps to ensure that he, she or it is not a unit holder
on the instalment date. It appears that a great many unit holders
disposed of their units in October and November of 2008. It may have
been the case that they did so to avoid the payment of the instalments.
In any event, it is not necessary for me to make any findings about
those matters.

238 I do not accept the suggestion that the transactions and the put
option are analogous to s 172 of the Property Law Act 1958 (Victoria).
BMC invokes the common law principles that underlie s 172 of the
Property Law Act 1958. BMC alleges that ASI is seeking to divest itself
of potential liabilities to avoid meeting them and by a means that
ensures that the liabilities will not be met. I do not see any
unconscionable or impropriety in such conduct. If it is the case, as it
is suggested, that the units will not be valued in the market for an
amount equal to or more than the second instalment on and after 29 April
2009 when the second instalment will be paid by the unit holders or the
underwriters, then it is in the commercial interest of a current unit
holder to avoid by legal means, if it can, becoming liable to pay the
instalment.

239 The BrisConnections Project relies on many parties making rational
commercial decisions in their own interests to make a profit. It does
not rely on any person undertaking any publicly spirited actions of
charity. The project is a commercial venture. It may not be in the
commercial interests of current unit holders to remain unit holders on
29 April 2009, I do not see anything improper in unit holders taking
legal steps to ensure they are not registered unit holders on 29 April
2009.

240 BMC relies on principles of equity, which themselves rely on
unconscionability. Why is it unconscionable for a unit holder, whose
investment in the project is currently valueless, takings steps to avoid
wasting more money on the project, if that be the case? Perhaps it might
be said that others have relied on the current unit holder paying the
instalments and have altered their position to their advantage on such
reliance. None of the existing unit holders have represented, however,
that they will remain unit holders on 29 April 2009 or that they will
ensure the second payment is made. The other contracting parties in the
BrisConnections Project took the risk that the project may not be
successful, if that be the case, and that existing unit holders may seek
to cease being unit holders on 29 April 2009. The evidence establishes
that institutions who held substantial numbers of units in the unit
trusts disposed of these units some time ago and that the current unit
holders include many who were not aware of the liability attached to the
units when they acquired them. On the limited submissions that were
made, I do not find any matter in s 172 of the Property Law Act 1958
that is relevant to the just and equitable claim."


----------



## JAB_Charity (12 April 2009)

Bumped my flight to 11am.  This dispatch on the fly from Virgin Lounge [not a lot of virgins here from what I can see -- s.52 TPA misleadings and deceptive?]

Seriously, thanks for response -- this helps us provide more information on our position in relation to BrisConnections.



dogby said:


> Call me naive, but taking on millions of dollars of potential liability doesn't to me seem consistent with what a charity should be doing. If you are lucky it may go well, if you are unlucky it might not. I would have thought that a charity is bound to not take unnecessary risks. Do you have a charter/constitution ?




A fair question.

The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust is a discretionary investment trust, approved on 30 June 2008 by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) as a Prescribed Private Fund (PPF) and registered as a Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR), entitled to receive income tax deductible gifts from donors in the form of cash and transfers of shares, which are then invested and managed for solely charitable purposes.

The Charitable Fund is governed by a Trust Deed with wide powers to invest fo solely charitable purposes, including gearing strategies.  This is markedly different from the Trustees of a Superannuation Fund, which are regulated by APRA (and by the ATO for Self-Managed Superannuation Funds), where borrowing for instance is broadly prohibited -- including investment in instalment warrants that are with recourse to the investor (so excluding Telstra non-recourse instalments).  It would be difficult for a superannuation fund to include BCSCA instalments within a super portfolio, without well-documenting the investment strategy and as part of a risk management strategy documentation.  There is no such probation for our charitable trust

David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://www.Barrow.ORG.AU


----------



## Sunder (12 April 2009)

yttrium said:


> 238 I do not accept the suggestion that the transactions and the put
> option are analogous to s 172 of the Property Law Act 1958 (Victoria).
> BMC invokes the common law principles that underlie s 172 of the
> Property Law Act 1958. BMC alleges that ASI is seeking to divest itself
> ...




Insofar as being "charitable", I agree with the judge, that it's not improper to divest yourself of the liability legally. I'm not quite so convinced that divesting yourself of the liability when you fully well know it will not be paid, however is "proper". Let's work the argument from the other way around:

Has the judge considered whether is it "improper", to acquire those liabilities, for your benefit (i.e, take payment to accept the liabilities as a "gift"), with no intention of meeting those liabilities? If yes, has a crime been committed? 

If yes to both questions above, and the first party, seeking to divest themselves of the liability in the full knowledge that a crime is to be committed, assists the criminal in their venture, is this then, either illegal or at least "improper"?

Most stores will not sell spray cans or knives to anyone under 18, because there is "reasonable cause" to believe that a crime will be committed by those customers. Not evidence, reasonable cause. Where does that leave someone who wants to pay for a liability to be removed from them, to someone who is intending to send the liability "to the bottom of Phillip Bay"?


----------



## sails (12 April 2009)

Sunder said:


> Insofar as being "charitable", I agree with the judge, that it's not improper to divest yourself of the liability legally. I'm not quite so convinced that divesting yourself of the liability when you fully well know it will not be paid, however is "proper". Let's work the argument from the other way around:
> 
> Has the judge considered whether is it "improper", to acquire those liabilities, for your benefit (i.e, take payment to accept the liabilities as a "gift"), with no intention of meeting those liabilities? If yes, has a crime been committed?




Surely you accept that the judge has far greater knowledge AND understanding of corporate law than most people.  After all, it is a highly educated career and it appears he was not swayed by those in positions of power.  As it was explained in the court judgment (excerpt below): 

_*'224 Turning to the facts of this case, is there a present obligation on ASI to pay an instalment which may become payable on the happening of some future event? The obligation to pay an instalment is only imposed on those unit holders identified as being registered on 29 April 2009.  No obligation arises out of being a unit holder as such. The obligation only arises if the person is a unit holder on a certain day.'*_



> If yes to both questions above, and the first party, seeking to divest themselves of the liability in the full knowledge that a crime is to be committed, assists the criminal in their venture, is this then, either illegal or at least "improper"?




Of the offers to purchase or be gifted these units, can you state which one is fully intending to commit a crime?  

With such a low unit price, it opens the way for takeovers for all sorts of different reasons.  I don't understand this to be criminal intent.
eg.  Bolton wants to wind up the company.  The judge did not see this as a crime.  Jim wants to re-structure the company.  JAB charity seem have a business plan by the posts here.  All three of these have stated openly that they know about the upcoming liabilities and give the impression that they know what they are doing. 

Surely, the less the seller knows, the more of an "arms length" the transaction becomes.  I would have thought they only need to know that someone else wants the units for their own business purposes.

Anyway, you have never answered my question, Sunder:  
*Do you have any financial interest in this whole situation other than owning shares or units?*

Your posts appear designed to frighten holders from disposing of their units and yet the judge sees nothing wrong in it.


----------



## brty (12 April 2009)

Sunder,

Your spray cans example is just as relevant to the institutions dumping their shares on the retail investors in the first place.



> The obligation to pay an instalment is only imposed on those unit holders identified as being registered on 29 April 2009. No obligation arises out of being a unit holder as such. The obligation only arises if the person is a unit holder on a certain day.'




The judge is basically saying that you are wrong, there is no obligation to find out if the person you pass the units to, by any legal means (ie the other party agrees to take them), is financially sound. Because there is no obligation on them unless they own the units on the 29th April.

This reads to me that gifting the units to the 102 year old dying relative who has no assets and lives on the pension is fine if they agree.

brty


----------



## dogby (12 April 2009)

JAB_Charity said:


> The Charitable Fund is governed by a Trust Deed with wide powers to invest fo solely charitable purposes, including gearing strategies.
> 
> ...
> It would be difficult for a superannuation fund to include BCSCA instalments within a super portfolio, without well-documenting the investment strategy and as part of a risk management strategy documentation.  There is no such probation for our charitable trust
> http://www.Barrow.ORG.AU




Good luck David, I hope you make millions of dollars which you then use for charitable purposes, legalised robin hood. take from the rich, give to the poor.

I wish you the best. I hope you know what you're doing.


----------



## Warren Greenspan (12 April 2009)

David from JAB

In your Investment Strategy you list

*" .....the relief of poverty, the relief of the needs of the aged, the relief of sickness or distress,....."*

If you are successful in releasing some of these poor buggers from this mess then you've certainly fulfilled those "charitable purposes".

If you can further turn a dollar with these shares and help more people then that's got to be a win win (and hopefully a painful and expensive strike against the perpetrators of this mess).

Good luck to you

Disc. Don't hold....observor only


----------



## yttrium (12 April 2009)

The key paragraph of the judgement is 224, where Judge Robson states that the securities are not a liability per se, but impart a liability to the registered holder of the security at a particular point in time. This is in conflict with information given by Brisconnections to its unit holders. This raises the question of whether unit holders would have acted differently without this information, whether unit holders now have enough time to execute such action, and what pain and suffering the information has brought to unit holders by believing, on the basis of the information provided by Brisconnections, that to dispose of their units may constitute a criminal action? It also raises the question of whether Brisconnections has an obligation under the continuous disclosure provisions of the corporations act to correct this information, or at least to inform unit holders that information given by them to shareholders contradicts a Victorian Supreme Court Judgement?

The judgement was delivered on the 6th of April. With time so critical for unit holders who may still wish to dispose of their securities, I would have thought that Brisconnections would be obliged to respond to the judgement promptly.


----------



## drsmith (12 April 2009)

David,

A few additional questions have come to mind regarding your charity's aqusition of BCSCA units.

Firstly, For how many units have you receiced transfer notices and of those how many have actually been transferred into the charity ?

Secondly, What is the maximum number of units the charity will be accepting from unitholders ?

Also, Will you be voting on behalf of all unitholders who have sent transfer notices or only those units that have been formally transferred into the charity ?


----------



## yttrium (13 April 2009)

"Anyway, you have never answered my question, Sunder:
Do you have any financial interest in this whole situation other than owning shares or units?"

Given Sunder's repeated advice for people to behave lawfully, I doubt that there is any intention to expose himself to claims of unlawfulness.

To the best of my knowledge, in this thread, the view that the liability is intrinsic to the security was first suggested by cuttlefish (650), 

"Although it becomes payable on that date and remains with whoever held at the record date, thinking about it more, I suspect from a legal/accounting perspective that rather than the liability being 'created' on the record date, the legal liability exists already and is attached to the security and transferred with it up to that date. It is effectively detached from the security after the record date (and remains with the registered holder of the securities on the record date)."

then seconded by lesm (652):

"Correct, the liability remains with the party who was the registered holder on the relevant date. After this date, if the shares are sold, the liability will not be transferred."

Others posters in the thread have implied the belief, and unfortunately, these views, while perhaps well intentioned, may have caused considerable anxiety and stress to unit holders, and may yet cause some a financial loss. But according to Judge Robson, the liability is extrinsic to the security, being incurred on the registered holder at a particular time. So the transfer of a security cannot be considered a transfer of a liability, which would seem to be the basis of any fraud committed.

I'm also a little perplexed by the vehement opinion that paying someone with no assets to accept a transfer of securities is unethical. Such a person might consider it to his financial advantage to accept such a transfer, knowing that he would be little troubled by creditors.  With both parties of the transaction believing that they have benefited, surely this is a good outcome? With the suggestion that after the SIRD, the share price could drop to 30 cents, I would think that such an option might be commercially attractive to many.  The downside is that the underwriters might acquire the project.

So it comes down to an assessment of value by comparing the costs and revenue projections with other toll road projects. Tigerboi seems to have done this (873&875), and hardly seems enthusiastic. Would anyone like to offer a more favourable comparison?


----------



## JAB_Charity (13 April 2009)

Many thanks to the whole cavalcade of posters yesterday in support and challenge of The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust.



sails said:


> ...As it was explained in the court judgment (excerpt below):
> 
> _*'224 Turning to the facts of this case, is there a present obligation on ASI to pay an instalment which may become payable on the happening of some future event? The obligation to pay an instalment is only imposed on those unit holders identified as being registered on 29 April 2009.  No obligation arises out of being a unit holder as such. The obligation only arises if the person is a unit holder on a certain day.'*_




Yes -- that's as we see the world and as clearly confirmed by Justice Robson.




brty said:


> ...there is no obligation to find out if the person you pass the units to, by any legal means (ie the other party agrees to take them), is financially sound. Because there is no obligation on them unless they own the units on the 29th April.




Again -- as we see the world.  Appreciate the post.




Sunder said:


> Insofar as being "charitable", I agree with the judge, that it's not improper to divest yourself of the liability legally. I'm not quite so convinced that divesting yourself of the liability when you fully well know it will not be paid, however is "proper". ...




Thanks.  Welcome the challenge, Sunder, and chance to clarify.

We can't speak for other buyers like Nicholas Bolton at ASI or Jim Byrnes at Brisbane Toll Road Link Pty Ltd Holdings -- who as you can imagine we have been in contact with -- but our charitable trust is not in the market with any view to defaulting on any BrisConnections liability arising on 29 April 2009 should we be a holder at that point in time.

Refreshing our previous post: Complex dynamics are at play with BCSCA. The $1 calls can potentially be met by a market re-evaluation of unit fundamentals (driven by the unique, scarce, highly valuable asset: the long-term 45 year toll road concession), the charity's cash position and capacity to raise further donations before the 29 April final call -- and we may also trade out -- not in the current market perhaps but the situation can change dramatically between now and 22 April.  There are also ways of transferring ownership between 22 April and 7 May when the BCSCB instalments make their debut.

So many variables.  Consider just some of the following:

* 9am 14 April Supreme Court of QLD decision [yes/no]

* resurrected Macquarie-led offer [yes/no]

* 14 April gen meeting [7 resolutions yes/no; say 3 ways skinning each of these; includes deferral of 29 April Call as possibility]

* QLD Govt steps in with holder security [yes/no]

* Recapitalisation options [say 3 ways]

* Restructure options [say 3 ways; $2.9m syndicate varies terms?; morph instalments into a highly-tax-effective product with accelerated write-off?; other?]

* Takeover bid [say 3 ways this could play]

= 2 x 2 x 7 x 3 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 3

= 4,536 combinations




dogby said:


> Good luck David, I hope you make millions of dollars which you then use for charitable purposes, legalised robin hood. take from the rich, give to the poor.
> 
> I wish you the best. I hope you know what you're doing.





Thanks dogby.  Appreciate the support.




Warren Greenspan said:


> David from JAB
> 
> In your Investment Strategy you list
> 
> ...





Thanks for post Greenspan.

Indirect benefits to unitholders who would like to minimise their exposure to the possible 29 April 2009 $1 call -- these indirect benefits being what some economists call a 'positive externality'.  Well, we would be pleased if that were the case as we go about our solely charitable purpose in relation to the BrisConnections units.


Thanks all for support. +post from yttrium -- just in as I send this update.

I am now in Brisbane -- staying Taringa near Brisbane CBD.  Happy to meet up in person with more BCSCA unitholders before 10am 14 April BrisConnections meeting.

And can be contacted on my Mbl: 0448 778 737


David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://www.barrow.org.au/


----------



## JAB_Charity (13 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> David,
> 
> A few additional questions have come to mind regarding your charity's aqusition of BCSCA units.
> 
> ...




These are the laser-in questions drsmith.

Thankyou for posting them.

As far as the 10am 14 April meeting is concerned: BCSCA transfers were required to be registered with the Link share registry service by close of business THU 9 April and Proxies were required to be faxed to BrisConnections or Link by 10am SUN 12 April.

So we are not of course now talking to new prospective BCSCA sellers about 14 April voting matters.  All those instructions are set and I'm sorry that we will only be able to make them known through our actions at the meeting.

There will be a lot of press there -- and updates will stream pretty fast I'm sure -- as the aggregate votes become known.

14 April meeting, if it goes ahead at all following 9am Supreme Court of QLD ruling to be handed down by Justice Dutney -- well, if the meeting gets under way we are all facing extraordinary circumstances with highstakes for all.

So as everyone already can see it will not be a simple casting of votes like a general AGM where the financial accounts are adopted and there might be a symbolic protest vote over the remuneration committee's bonus package for the directers.  And then off for a scone and a chat with management.

The stakes are so high that there will be Federal Politics type scrutiny of each and every proxy form and vote by teams of lawyers for all parties.  Not wanting to be too facetious, but think 2004 US Predential Election -- crucial State of Florida.

What we expect is that the meeting will run at least all day 14 April as much of the time will be spent with lawyers scrutinising the proxies and challenging the authority to act of attendees.

+Meeting could well then be adjourned with unfinished business.

And this might even be a good idea to give stakeholders some more time to breathe -- however if the 29 April call is somehow deferred or adjourned or rescheduled it is not totally certain what this will mean for the $2.9m of syndicated funding to the project.  We are sure that this cadre of mostly foreign bank commitments, if not wanting to exit the Brisbane Airport Toll altogether, would like terms to be re-struck to take into account the current economic environment -- so any wiggle room to declare the commitments void, such as a change in the 29 April 2009 $1 call, could bring the project down.  Most would agree that this would be a bad outcome for Australia.


David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://www.barrow.org.au/


----------



## Largesse (13 April 2009)

Now the question is, is this worth a punt for a bloke with no assets what so ever (car is in someone elses name, no house, still a student) and no ongoing liabilities (kids/wife etc) and a spare $5-10k?
If I had to default on the next installment, am I that worse off? 
If i was to default, what happens to the units i have already partly paid for? Are they reposesed? 

Theres a chunk of 25m units sitting on the ask at 0.001 right now... i could take 5-10m of them 
Just trying to think outside the square here


----------



## Nyden (13 April 2009)

Largesse said:


> Now the question is, is this worth a punt for a bloke with no assets what so ever (car is in someone elses name, no house, still a student) and no ongoing liabilities (kids/wife etc) and a spare $5-10k?
> If I had to default on the next installment, am I that worse off?
> If i was to default, what happens to the units i have already partly paid for? Are they reposesed?
> 
> ...




Would you put that 5-10k on Black at the roulette table? If not, there's your answer.

Please remember that your credit rating may also take a beating, and depending on what career aspirations you have, this could be quite a hindrance.


----------



## Largesse (13 April 2009)

Nyden said:


> Would you put that 5-10k on Black at the roulette table? If not, there's your answer.
> 
> Please remember that your credit rating may also take a beating, and depending on what career aspirations you have, this could be quite a hindrance.




I see where the analogy is going but it's slightly different.
If i were to drop $10k on black, i've got 18 in 37 chance to win 1:1 on my outlay.

However, should a benefitial outcome be extracted from the 4500 odd possible outcomes JAB highlighted in a previous post, then i'm thinking there pay off could well be alot higher than 1:1. Question is, just how many of the outcomes are positive for BCSCA holders?

Now I understand all the longer term implications with declaring bankruptcy, and thats what you have to weigh up against the potential pay off.

All fun and games/dreaming at this stage


----------



## Nyden (13 April 2009)

Largesse said:


> I see where the analogy is going but it's slightly different.
> If i were to drop $10k on black, i've got 18 in 37 chance to win 1:1 on my outlay.
> 
> However, should a benefitial outcome be extracted from the 4500 odd possible outcomes JAB highlighted in a previous post, then i'm thinking there pay off could well be alot higher than 1:1. Question is, just how many of the outcomes are positive for BCSCA holders?
> ...




I could respect this potential decision if it was based on some form of analysis, or if you had an in-depth knowledge of the company, and its future prospects. However, this is purely gambling Largesse, and in my opinion the risks, and hazards, far outweigh any potential for gains.

It may seem a small loss now, but how would you really feel if you were $10,000 poorer, unable to get a loan for a potentially long time, and yes - all of the other longer term implications of bankruptcy. One being garnished salary (sounds yummier than it is?) for potentially quite a few years.

Here's one potential (unlikely!) mishap that could happen as well. What if whilst holding said liability (or bankruptcy), you came into some money? Such as an inheritance, a lottery win, or basically anything of good fortune. It may all be taken away.


----------



## Sunder (13 April 2009)

brty said:


> Sunder,
> The judge is basically saying that you are wrong, there is no obligation to find out if the person you pass the units to, by any legal means (ie the other party agrees to take them), is financially sound. Because there is no obligation on them unless they own the units on the 29th April.




I agree, and have 100% always agreed with him. No contest. You have still continued to miss my point, and I don't feel it's worth labouring again.



sails said:


> Surely you accept that the judge has far greater knowledge AND understanding of corporate law than most people.  After all, it is a highly educated career and it appears he was not swayed by those in positions of power.  As it was explained in the court judgment (excerpt below):




Fully agree - however, the judge, at least in the quoted context, limited his comment on the legality of legally disposing of the shares, not of the legality of accepting the shares, knowing there is a liability attached, and having no intent to pay them.



> Surely, the less the seller knows, the more of an "arms length" the transaction becomes.  I would have thought they only need to know that someone else wants the units for their own business purposes.




Fully agree - and sellers to Bolton know that he is not intending to pay. This destroys the arms length



> Anyway, you have never answered my question, Sunder:
> *Do you have any financial interest in this whole situation other than owning shares or units?*




I have stated at least four times that I have no interest in BCSCA, MQG or Deutsch Bank. 



> Your posts appear designed to frighten holders from disposing of their units and yet the judge sees nothing wrong in it.




Designed? Not at all. The actions of holders walks the twilight between legal and "above reproach". If what they did was beyond reproach, then nothing I could say would frighten them. If they thought what they did was legal, but questionable, then it might frighten them. What does that say to you?


----------



## sails (13 April 2009)

Sunder said:


> ...Fully agree - and sellers to Bolton know that he is not intending to pay. This destroys the arms length



Sunder, can't you see that it is these sort of partial statements from you that can cause fear and uncertainty. But, somehow, you keep forgetting that Bolton had a business plan that could potentially remove the liability, which puts it in a different light.  Surely all the seller needs to know is someone is actively accumulating (wants to buy) the units for their own business purposes.



> I have stated at least four times that I have no interest in BCSCA, MQG or Deutsch Bank.



Fair enough.  But then what's your motivation in spending so much time posting? 



> Designed? Not at all. The actions of holders walks the twilight between legal and "above reproach". If what they did was beyond reproach, then nothing I could say would frighten them. If they thought what they did was legal, but questionable, then it might frighten them. What does that say to you?




Apologies if I have misinterpreted your posts, but that is how they come across to me.  They seem to plant seeds of uncertainty and doubt for retail unit holders who would otherwise be so grateful to transfer their units to an entity actively seeking to acquire them.

Your posts have often indicated that transferring units could potentially be fraudulent.  You talk about arms length transactions.  It is general knowledge now that BrisC has made statements along these general lines in at least one of their notices.  However, a supreme court judge does not agree.  I read on another forum that a unit holder took the relevant BrisC statement to their lawyer and were told it was a gross misrepresentation of the law. Now, that's only hearsay coming from a forum, but if it is true, it ties in with the judges findings.

 I would imagine many caught in this thing in the first place were not well educated in financial products, let alone being experts in corporate law. Of course, they are going to feel nervous when they keep being told they may be committing a fraudulent act, etc, etc...  Can't you see that?


----------



## yttrium (13 April 2009)

Sunder



> however, the judge, at least in the quoted context, limited his comment on the legality of legally disposing of the shares, not of the legality of accepting the shares, knowing there is a liability attached, and having no intent to pay them.




As has been repeated by myself (ad nauseum) and others, the security is not a liability, but incurs a liability to the registered holder at a particular time. Hence there are no grounds for a transfer of securities representing a transfer of liability, by either the divestor or acquirer, and therefore no grounds for allegations of fraud. If you still hold your view that the securities carry a liability, that is your entitlement, but be aware that it is a view at odds with the judgement.

Is it your view that it should be a requirement that anyone acquiring securities must have an ability to meet the liability that they might incur? I agree that this would have been a good condition for the transfer of this type of security, and would have prevented a lot of anguish. But clearly the condition of meeting the incurred liability has not been a condition of transfer.


----------



## freddy2 (13 April 2009)

Sunder said:


> Fully agree - and sellers to Bolton know that he is not intending to pay. This destroys the arms length




You really need to re-read the judgment because this is not true. While Bolton clearly does not intend to pay he does intend to either off load the shares or wind up the company to achieve this. In no way does this destroy an otherwise arms length transaction with Bolton.


----------



## sails (13 April 2009)

yttrium said:


> ...As has been repeated by myself (ad nauseum) and others, the security is not a liability, but incurs a liability to the registered holder at a particular time. Hence there are no grounds for a transfer of securities representing a transfer of liability, by either the divestor or acquirer, and therefore no grounds for allegations of fraud. If you still hold your view that the securities carry a liability, that is your entitlement, but be aware that it is a view at odds with the judgement.




Yes, Sunder has had us all going on about unit holders selling on the basis of whether or not the buyer has the ability to pay.  But, as you rightly point out, the judgement clearly states that there is no liability unless you own the units on a certain date.  Hopefully, that clears it up once and for all...


----------



## brty (13 April 2009)

Sunder,

Paying the bum to take the shares a month ago, say $1000 to take $1m face value of units, would have had a positive benefit for the bum, as he could now transfer his units to the JAB charity, something nobody here knew about 1 month ago.

It goes to show that the transfer of the asset, is just that at present, and can legally be arms length or non-arms length, because nobody really knows IF there will be liability, until the 29th April because of the special meeting.

brty


----------



## Macquack (13 April 2009)

*Macquarie Puts Together Syndicate To Take BrisConnections Private*
From the Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090412-703377.html



> Executives from Macquarie are working over the Easter holiday weekend to have a proposal put to unitholders at an already planned extraordinary meeting Tuesday that was called to vote on a proposal to wind up BrisConnections, the newspaper said, without citing its sources.




Now Macquarie wants the meeting to go ahead.


----------



## Julia (13 April 2009)

The article is only available to subscribers, Macquack. Any chance of a copy and paste of it?  Sounds interesting.


----------



## Sunder (13 April 2009)

yttrium said:


> Sunder
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree with everything you say above. The fraud is not the selling of the liability. I have also said that numerous times. But someone (Bolton) has out and out said, "I will send the shares to a useless company a day before determination date if things don't my way". Hasn't he already admitted that he's intending to default on the liability? 

The issue is not due diligence on the part of the seller to check on the buyer. The issue is the ethics of selling to someone who has outright said they intend to default. 

There is no due diligence on K-mart to check if purchasers of knives are mentally stable. However, if one came to the checkout and said "I'm going to take this knife and start stabbing people - as soon as I've paid for it..." and then the checkout person still sells it and says "Sure mate, I guess you don't need a bag then?"... Legal or not, there are some ethical issues there.

I don't think that view is at odds with the judgement, so much as not covered by it.


----------



## Macquack (13 April 2009)

This is all there is.
*Macquarie Puts Together Syndicate To Take BrisConnections Pvt-Report
*
SYDNEY (Dow Jones)--Australian toll road developer BrisConnections' (BCS.AU) main underwriter, Macquarie Capital Advisers, is putting together a syndicate to take the developer private and give retail investors an opportunity to exit their investment in the firm, the Australian newspaper reported Monday. 

Executives from Macquarie are working over the Easter holiday weekend to have a proposal put to unitholders at an already planned extraordinary meeting Tuesday that was called to vote on a proposal to wind up BrisConnections, the newspaper said, without citing its sources. 

The move is the latest in a number of attempts to resolve a messy situation. Investors in BrisConnections partly paid securities initially paid A$1.00 for each unit last year with the requirement that they pay two further installments of A$1.00 each as project construction got underway. But the price of the units fell dramatically when listed on the Australian Securites Exchange and retail investors bought the units at just 0.1 Australian cent without realizing that they would have to make further installment payments. 

In a statement last week, BrisConnections said its joint underwriters, Macquarie and Deutsche Bank AG, weren't able to agree on a proposal to waive their rights to recover an upcoming A$1.00 installment from retail investors in the partly paid units or securities. 

-By Iain McDonald, Dow Jones Newswires


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2009)

JAB_Charity said:


> These are the laser-in questions drsmith.
> 
> Thankyou for posting them.
> 
> ...



Although your post above did not provide direct answers to the questions raised it was an interesting read in itself.

It seems to me that your interest in this goes well beyond just the fate of the retail unitholders. I just hope that should a conflict of interest arise that it is the retail unitholders you put first when you vote on the resolutions (should it come to that).

With regard to the $2.9m of syndicated funding there have been a number of media reports suggesting that if the banks could choose now, they would not do it. It's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out even if Brisconnections gets the instalment money into it's coffers (from whatever source). It would not suprise me in the slightest  if one or more of the banks in the syndicate have lawyers going over the loan agreements with a fine tooth comb to try and find a way out.

The following article from The Australian offers some interesting commentary,

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25324942-643,00.html



> BrisConnections chairman Trevor Rowe will chair the meeting despite the fact that he is also chairman of the Queensland Government's investment arm QIC, which has a 9.9 per cent stake.
> 
> Macquarie, which has multiple exposure to BrisConnections as an underwriter, financier and stakeholder, is believed to be working on a take-private proposal that would bring all major institutional shareholders in to pay $2 a unit, thus allowing retail unitholders to walk away if they want to.



The odds of QIC taking a bigger stake shorten by the minute.



> The Queensland Government declined a proposal to cut back elements of the tollway plan to save money.



Does this now mean that Queensland Government will have to cough up  extra for the tollway to be built in it's present form ?

I'm wondering whether the board of Brisconnections should have organised the meeting for the Gabba and sold tickets.


----------



## yttrium (14 April 2009)

Sunder

You seem to think that there is some crime being committed through the transfer of units, but what crime? There is no condition of transfer of units of being able to meet any incurred liability, be it inclination or capacity. Nor can I understand how it is that the holder of units is commiting a crime by being unable to meet a liability. I can understand your reasoning if there has been a transfer of a liability to a person unable to pay, but where is the deception here? I could buy a few million BCSCA today, subsequently incurring a liability that I could not pay: Would this be a criminal act? My understanding is that there has to be a deception of the creditor, not merely a lack of funds to pay a liability.


----------



## adman0001 (14 April 2009)

Sunder said:


> I agree with everything you say above. The fraud is not the selling of the liability. I have also said that numerous times. But someone (Bolton) has out and out said, "I will send the shares to a useless company a day before determination date if things don't my way". Hasn't he already admitted that he's intending to default on the liability?
> 
> The issue is not due diligence on the part of the seller to check on the buyer. The issue is the ethics of selling to someone who has outright said they intend to default.
> 
> ...




You know Sunder, I asked you once before ol' mate to a typical no response, did you or anyone else know at the start of the year what Bolton's intensions where, what his financial status was, when these transfers where apparently made, because if YOU did, you must be his brother or something. I've been an interested observer in all this and I must say I find it very odd for someone to continually lay the boot in when people are down and needing to find a way out. As I said before, these people had found a willing buyer who wanted more of the stock, who in the hell cares what his motives are, remembering the timeline of all this.                                                  There are so many sides to all this. There's the 1300 people aready employed on the project, they'd be hearing rumours every other day of the week about their jobs, all the uncertainty for them. I know what it's like, I've been working in construction all over Oz for over 20 yrs and i've seen big jobs fold, take ANC in Rockhampton for instance! But this is different, they've got a hole in the ground that they are not just goin to stop working on and leave. At the end of the day this job will be finished, whether the state gov. or someone else steps in, it'll get done. The legalities of all this will get sorted and hopefully those people with the transfers will be left in peace. Can you imagine the heartache of those and the ones still holding them have had over these months. Good luck to them I say. Maybe you just gotta try and wear the shoe on the other foot Sunder, it's not that hard......


----------



## Enzyme (14 April 2009)

News just in - the meeting can proceed

BrisConnections wind-up meeting can proceed


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2009)

Not only that, negotiations between the co-underwriters of the failed BrisConnections float, Macquarie Group and Deutsche Bank, broke off over the weekend. Both parties say they will wait for the result of a shareholder vote before agreeing to any deal.

http://business.smh.com.au/business/brisconnections-fateful-morning-20090413-a4re.html

So much for my idle speculation.


----------



## Enzyme (14 April 2009)

Another complication.  This time with proxies that would give unit holders yet another reason to challenge the result of the meeting in the event of Bolton failing.  From this link BisConnections' crisis Meeting:



> A further complication involving this morning's meeting is that the only posted proxies that will be counted are the ones posted by unitholders before 6 pm in capital cities on last Wednesday.
> 
> It seems this has happened because the deadline for lodging proxies by post, was 10 am Sydney time Friday, but the forms were not sent out until last Tuesday and did not arrive in letterboxes until Wednesday.
> 
> ...


----------



## Enzyme (14 April 2009)

Slightly more detail on the judges ruling:  BrisConn faces wind-up



> In a two-minute hearing in Brisbane, Justice Dutney in the Supreme Court of Queensland did not uphold any of the claims put by Macquarie Group, co-underwriter and financier of BrisConnections, or grant an injunction sought by the investment bank to stop a meeting of unit holders from proceeding.




Dammit, why is AussieStockForums now demanding I make every post a minimum length?  Is that happening to everyone?  My previous posts I had to put a heap of zzzzzz's at the end of my post to be allowed to post it, then I edited the post to get rid of the rubish it forced me to add at the end.


----------



## Prospector (14 April 2009)

Hey Enzyme, this discussion used to be in General Chat and it has now been moved into a Formal Share discussion, so the rules changed, and the minimum length is designed to stop blatant ramping.


----------



## sails (14 April 2009)

Enzyme said:


> ...Dammit, why is AussieStockForums now demanding I make every post a minimum length?  Is that happening to everyone?  My previous posts I had to put a heap of zzzzzz's at the end of my post to be allowed to post it, then I edited the post to get rid of the rubish it forced me to add at the end.




I'm guessing it's because the thread has been renamed and put under the stock forum where you have to have 100 characters.  ASF don't want ramping - but that's hardly a problem with this stock!

Problem is if you type lots of dots or zzzs - a mod might delete the post!

Also, this is not a normal ASX traded stock - perhaps it would be better placed under the derivates forum now that it will be traded in future under similar conditons to options, warrants and futures.  Just my opinion 

Going to be an interesting few days...


----------



## Julia (14 April 2009)

Agree with Sails - ramping surely isn't going to be a problem!!
I think it should go back into the General Chat section.


----------



## sails (14 April 2009)

adman0001 said:


> You know Sunder, I asked you once before ol' mate to a typical no response, did you or anyone else know at the start of the year what Bolton's intensions where, what his financial status was, when these transfers where apparently made, because if YOU did, you must be his brother or something. I've been an interested observer in all this and I must say I find it very odd for someone to continually lay the boot in when people are down and needing to find a way out. As I said before, these people had found a willing buyer who wanted more of the stock, who in the hell cares what his motives are, remembering the timeline of all this.                                                  There are so many sides to all this. There's the 1300 people aready employed on the project, they'd be hearing rumours every other day of the week about their jobs, all the uncertainty for them. I know what it's like, I've been working in construction all over Oz for over 20 yrs and i've seen big jobs fold, take ANC in Rockhampton for instance! But this is different, they've got a hole in the ground that they are not just goin to stop working on and leave. At the end of the day this job will be finished, whether the state gov. or someone else steps in, it'll get done. The legalities of all this will get sorted and hopefully those people with the transfers will be left in peace. Can you imagine the heartache of those and the ones still holding them have had over these months. Good luck to them I say. Maybe you just gotta try and wear the shoe on the other foot Sunder, it's not that hard......




Yes, I am totally mystified what his motivation is to keep posting the way he does.  Adman0001, hopefully there have been enough other posters with a different perspective to offer some encouragement.

When all this is over, it would be interesting to hear what happened to our original posters that were caught.


----------



## mazzatelli1000 (14 April 2009)

http://business.smh.com.au/business/brisconn-faces-windup-20090414-a56b.html

Well things are looking interesting


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2009)

Julia said:


> Agree with Sails - ramping surely isn't going to be a problem!!
> I think it should go back into the General Chat section.



Perhaps what the forum needs is intensive care, a morgue and a cemetery.

This one would obviously be in intensive care but by the end of the day it might be in the morgue.


----------



## sails (14 April 2009)

Here's an update on the meeting titled "BrisConn boss faces fire":  http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/qld-news/brisconn-boss-faces-fire-20090414-a5cn.html



drsmith said:


> Perhaps what the forum needs is intensive care, a morgue and a cemetery.
> 
> This one would obviously be in intensive care but by the end of the day it might be in the morgue.




I think it would be prudent to have any of these "CA", "CB" etc partly paid units in a separate category to normal ASX shares with three letter codes.  At least it might help ASF members in the future to realise they are not normal...


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2009)

sails said:


> Here's an update on the meeting titled "BrisConn boss faces fire":  http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/qld-news/brisconn-boss-faces-fire-20090414-a5cn.html



A failed attempt to knock off Trevor Rowe as chariman of the meeting.



sails said:


> I think it would be prudent to have any of these "CA", "CB" etc partly paid units in a separate category to normal ASX shares with three letter codes.  At least it might help ASF members in the future to realise they are not normal...



In all seriousness that is something worth considering.


----------



## Enzyme (14 April 2009)

No sign yet of any results from the meeting, but Trevor Rowe's presentation to the meeting is here:

http://newsstore.theage.com.au/apps/previewDocument.ac?docID=GCA00943808BCS&f=pdf


----------



## Enzyme (14 April 2009)

Here is the first report I've seen from what is going on in the meeting:

BrisConn boss faces fire

Oops.  Sails beat me by half an hour with that link.  Sorry.


----------



## sails (14 April 2009)

BrisConn wind-up move fails - full report here: http://business.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/brisconn-windup-move-fails-20090414-a56b.html


----------



## Absolutely (14 April 2009)

sails said:


> BrisConn wind-up move fails - full report here: http://business.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/brisconn-windup-move-fails-20090414-a56b.html




Pretty much expected. It's the other motions which will be interesting.

Pity they didn't get rid of Rowe.


----------



## investorpaul (14 April 2009)

Wow - still a few more motions to go before holders today. It is an amazing story for those watching on the sidelines.

If i studied corporate law other something similar I would love to tackle this as an assignment


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2009)

While the wind up vote failed (as expected) it would be interesting to see the numbers as they may offer a guide as to how Nick Bolton's other resolutions will fare.


----------



## sails (14 April 2009)

Enzyme said:


> No sign yet of any results from the meeting, but Trevor Rowe's presentation to the meeting is here:
> 
> http://newsstore.theage.com.au/apps/previewDocument.ac?docID=GCA00943808BCS&f=pdf




I see refreshments is the last thing on the agenda.  How interesting to be a fly on the wall.  Can't imagine it being exactly a happy social time by the end of this meeting unless someone can come up with a win:win for all.


----------



## sails (14 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> While the wind up vote failed (as expected) it would be interesting to see the numbers as they may offer a guide as to how Nick Bolton's other resolutions will fare.




Here is the info:



> The BrisConnections board urged investors to vote against the resolution and it was defeated by a margin of 64 per cent to 36 per cent.



Source:  http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/14/2542371.htm?site=brisbane

I wonder what's happening with the postal votes?


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2009)

sails said:


> How interesting to be a fly on the wall.



Indeed.

I'm suprised some bright spark at Macquarie Bank didn't suggest selling broadcast rights.


----------



## Enzyme (14 April 2009)

I was just listening to ABC radio.  They crossed to an interview with a reporter at the meeting.  *The reporter said Nick Bolton voted against the resolution to wind up BrisConnections!*

Two court cases and hundreds of thousands of dollars in court cases to have the meeting, and he voted against his own resolution.

There are another six resolutions to follow....


----------



## sails (14 April 2009)

Enzyme said:


> I was just listening to ABC radio.  They crossed to an interview with a reporter at the meeting.  *The reporter said Nick Bolton voted against the resolution to wind up BrisConnections!*
> 
> Two court cases and hundreds of thousands of dollars in court cases to have the meeting, and he voted against his own resolution.
> 
> There are another six resolutions to follow....




Here is an article confirming what you heard on radio, Enzyme:
http://business.watoday.com.au/business/brisconn-bolton-does-uturn-20090414-a56b.html

and further reading that article - here is another surprise:



> BrisConnections chairman, Trevor Rowe, told an angry meeting of unit holders that Mr Bolton's company, Australian Style Investments, had voted against all seven resolutions when its proxies were received on Saturday.




The twists and turns in this thing are unbelievable.  If the media report on the vote percentages is correct, Bolton's votes would have probably got it through - although I'm not sure of his exact percentage.

I makes one wonder what deals have already been done, what went on in the meeting Bolton had with Rowe, etc.


----------



## alphaman (14 April 2009)

Apparently Bolton voted against his own proposals. So many twists and turns.

http://business.smh.com.au/business/brisconn-bolton-does-uturn-20090414-a56b.html


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2009)

According to the above article Michael Bolton has voted against each and every one of his own resolutions.


----------



## investorpaul (14 April 2009)

What the hell is going on, Bolton is mad, crazy and nuts all put together.

It smells a bit to me, maybe another deal has been done that we dont know about.


----------



## Prospector (14 April 2009)

Hey guys, I understand you are excited but we get it that Bolton voted against each one of his resolutions, no need to repeat it so many times


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2009)

sails said:


> The twists and turns in this thing are unbelievable.  If the media report on the vote percentages is correct, Bolton's votes would have probably got it through - although I'm not sure of his exact percentage.
> 
> I makes one wonder what deals have already been done, what went on in the meeting Bolton had with Rowe, etc.



Had Bolton supported the wind up resolution the vote in favour would have been around 56% which would have has the RE on very shaky ground in relation to the other resolutions.

No deal has been done either according to the same article.



> Mr Rowe said there was no offer to retail shareholders to absolve them of their installment payments.
> 
> ''We are dissappointed with that and have been working very hard ourselves,'' Mr Rowe said.
> 
> ''As the events of last week showed you, we got close, but we weren't able to get a proposal from the underwriters over the line. We have had umpteen meetings to try and resolve this, but as I stand before, I don't have an answer to all this.''




Perhaps Bolton just hit the panic button.


----------



## sails (14 April 2009)

The plot thickens - this might explain a bit:



> In a dramatic twist to the BrisConnections saga, rebel shareholder Nicholas Bolton has sold his 77 million shares to Leighton Holdings subsidiary Theiss-John Holland.




Source:  http://business.theage.com.au/business/brisconn-bolton-does-a-deal-20090414-a56b.html

I wonder where this leaves the retail people still holding...


----------



## Absolutely (14 April 2009)

investorpaul said:


> What the hell is going on, Bolton is mad, crazy and nuts all put together.
> 
> It smells a bit to me, maybe another deal has been done that we dont know about.




The "White Knight" for retail investors has turned in to the grim reaper. This bloke will not be popular but he has saved himself to the detriment of all other retail holders.

There will be a huge backlash from the retail investors. If I were him, I'd be leaving the country fast.


----------



## alphaman (14 April 2009)

I wonder how much Bolton sold the shares for.

Hmm....hopefully MQG will work out a deal for the small shareholders.


----------



## Judd (14 April 2009)

Cunning.  If my calculations are correct then Nick sold 77,400,933 partly paid for $4,500,000, ie $0.058 average when the maximum he would have paid (at $0.001) was $77401.  Nice profit of $4,422,559.

No altruism in that boyoo.

See LEI's ASX announcement


----------



## Enzyme (14 April 2009)

alphaman said:


> I wonder how much Bolton sold the shares for.



I heard that Mr Nickolas Bolton, esq, of Melbourne sold his shares for a total $4.5 million.

(I hate having to pad out my posts now)


----------



## Julia (14 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> Had Bolton supported the wind up resolution the vote in favour would have been around 56% which would have has the RE on very shaky ground in relation to the other resolutions.
> 
> No deal has been done either according to the same article.
> 
> ...



Don't think so.  If he has sold his shares to Leighton's subsidiary Thiess as reported then presumably his end of the deal would have been that he would vote against his own resolutions because Leighton's obviously wouldn't want the whole venture to fall over.


----------



## MeToo (14 April 2009)

Look up the BCS company annoncements on the ASX.  LEI has become a substanial holder.  

This Bolton fellow has sold out.  Look at page 10 onwards, secret deal struck.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20090414/pdf/31h1pbc1s8clyp.pdf


----------



## Absolutely (14 April 2009)

Julia said:


> Don't think so.  If he has sold his shares to Leighton's subsidiary Thiess as reported then presumably his end of the deal would have been that he would vote against his own resolutions because Leighton's obviously wouldn't want the whole venture to fall over.




Yeah that's what I would be thinking. Where is the $4.5M sale price coming from? If so, the guy is a total genius.

Edit : Just read the announcement. Amazing stuff. But don't get it yet. Thiess John Holland could have got the shares from others for nothing.


----------



## investorpaul (14 April 2009)

This is absolutely crazy.

Bolton is a genius, just pocketed millions of dollars and has screwed everyone. 

He has played/manipulated MQG, QLD Gov, retailer unit holders, the courts and fooled everyone. What a ballsy move and it looks to have paid off big time.

Obviously he will now be the most hated man around, but hes rolling in cash.


----------



## sails (14 April 2009)

Just had a look at the market depth on bcsca and now there is a buyer for 100,000 lots!  Will be interesting to see what happens after the trading halt is lifted.


----------



## alphaman (14 April 2009)

Impressive indeed, and he did it with minimal risk. I used to think he got into the game only because he bought BCSCA by mistake, but now I think maybe he did plan something like this all along. Outcome bias is powerful indeed.

Anyway this should make him trader of the year.


----------



## sails (14 April 2009)

alphaman said:


> Impressive indeed, and he did it with minimal risk. I used to think he got into the game only because he bought BCSCA by mistake, but now I think maybe he did plan something like this all along. Outcome bias is powerful indeed....




Yes, it became clear some time ago that Bolton was in a different league to the mum and dad investors who had no idea of the future liability when they submitted their buy orders with a simple click of their mouse.


----------



## Nyden (14 April 2009)

sails said:


> Just had a look at the market depth on bcsca and now there is a buyer for 100,000 lots!  Will be interesting to see what happens after the trading halt is lifted.




Hardly noteworthy, when compared to the lots for sale - 24,294,524 :

100,000 at 0.001 only makes up to be $100


----------



## investorpaul (14 April 2009)

How much will he want for the book rights?

This would make an awesome "tell all tale" book, i still cant believe what has happened. No one saw it coming.

At best I was thinking that he would have had the payment delayed, underwriters and the gov prop the project up


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2009)

investorpaul said:


> This is absolutely crazy.
> 
> Bolton is a genius, just pocketed millions of dollars and has screwed everyone.
> 
> ...



I too wonder how much he'll make from the book.

What I fail to understand is why Leighton didn't first attempt to buy a blocking stake on the ASX for $0.001. Had this been executed early enough, Leighton may have winkled out enough retail shareholders and left Bolton high and dry.


----------



## Largesse (14 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> I wonder how much he'll make from the book.
> 
> What I fail to understand is why Leighton didn't first attempt to buy a vote blocking stake on the market for $0.001




bolton clearly has or had an understanding far beyond what all of us can collectively comprehend.


words words letters words


----------



## sails (14 April 2009)

Nyden said:


> Hardly noteworthy, when compared to the lots for sale - 24,294,524 :
> 
> 100,000 at 0.001 only makes up to be $100




Only noteworthy as there have been no buyers showing up in the depth for so long.  I also notice there are 100,000 lots for sale at .3c.  Perhaps Macquarie (or someone else) is going to "make a market" for the retail people to get out.  If so, that 100,000 buy offer may be replenished...   Of course, all conjecture.

$100 today but $200,000 future debt unless it's changed - not exactly spare change.


----------



## Rastan (14 April 2009)

investorpaul said:


> Obviously he will now be the most hated man around, but hes rolling in cash.




Just out of curiousity, who would he be hated by? I just wanted to see that the hapless retail investors that mistakenly bought up endless debt got off the hook. That has happened, hasn't it? He white knoghts some retail inverstors, he obv bought a lot by himself as part of his plan. 

Is Leighton the ones hating him? Isn't this leighton "backing themselves"... Dont forget they are are going to have to pay this debt, obviously they think its going to be worth something sometime and they will get their money back. 

Sorry if I missed something, but I cant work out who would hate him if Leighton are happy to pay a "measly" 5 mil to cover their own massive contract for building the road... Retail investors are happy, MCQ and Deutch are happy, leighton, i suppose may be a bit peeved but will do the contract and get their money back... 

what has it done to LEI stock price?


----------



## jama_kj (14 April 2009)

brilliantly played!!

i always thought he was in the game to strike a deal with the banks earlier on but once that didnt happen i thought maybe his plan backfired. he did it very well and you have to respect his ballsiness. 

looks like he essentially got the 5.95c dividend he was after (77m*0.0595 = $4581500)


----------



## Prospector (14 April 2009)

Wow, what a move.  Bolton was lamblasted as an ignorant nerd in some of the media, now it seems like he has pulled off the deal of a lifetime!  Way to go, fooled everyone.  (Not that I really understand what he has done )


----------



## Absolutely (14 April 2009)

Rastan said:


> Just out of curiousity, who would he be hated by? I just wanted to see that the hapless retail investors that mistakenly bought up endless debt got off the hook. That has happened, hasn't it? He white knoghts some retail inverstors, he obv bought a lot by himself as part of his plan.
> 
> Is Leighton the ones hating him? Isn't this leighton "backing themselves"... Dont forget they are are going to have to pay this debt, obviously they think its going to be worth something sometime and they will get their money back.
> 
> ...




There's a lot of retail investors still in who were relying on his motion being passed to have a chance of not having to pay the coming installments. The likelihood is that they will now be pursued if they havn't managed to offload, and could lose everything.


----------



## investorpaul (14 April 2009)

Rastan said:


> Just out of curiousity, who would he be hated by? I just wanted to see that the hapless retail investors that mistakenly bought up endless debt got off the hook. That has happened, hasn't it? He white knoghts some retail inverstors, he obv bought a lot by himself as part of his plan.




I personally think hes a genius, but I think there would be alot of mum and dad investors who had got there hopes up about Boltons resolutions being passed and thus being absolved of the future liabilities.

Those mum and dad have had their bubble bust and once again could face financial ruin. They are the ones who would be angry because whether they should have or not many viewed him as a white knight, which he isnt (nor did he have any responsibility to be)


----------



## Largesse (14 April 2009)

he simply played the game of brinkmanship a lot better than BCS or any of the affiliated/associated entities could

BECAUSE

he had SOOOOOOOOO much less to lose.

They simply couldn't run the risk of him derailing a multibillion dollar project.

In the end paying him off, because this is simply what has happened, was the safest option. And really, when you look at the overall picture, $4.5million is cheap. A large profit for him, but p1ss change for the guys he was up against


----------



## Largesse (14 April 2009)

investorpaul said:


> I personally think hes a genius, but I think there would be alot of mum and dad investors who had got there hopes up about Boltons resolutions being passed and thus being absolved of the future liabilities.
> 
> Those mum and dad have had their bubble bust and once again could face financial ruin. They are the ones who would be angry because whether they should have or not many viewed him as a white knight, which he isnt (nor did he have any responsibility to be)




I think alot of the Mum and Dads will feel used by him, he clearly let the media run with the heartache stories of battlers facing financial ruin, this would've definitely benefited his cause


----------



## Rastan (14 April 2009)

Absolutely said:


> There's a lot of retail investors still in who were relying on his motion being passed to have a chance of not having to pay the coming installments. The likelihood is that they will now be pursued if they havn't managed to offload, and could lose everything.




Ahh... thx... Any reason they didnt sell to him when they had the chance?

And leightons could be graceful and offer to buy other relatively small parcels for .01. If Bolton is making a profit, he is seling at more than .01. Leightons should offer other investors the chance to sell at .01 but life often isn't that fair.


----------



## sails (14 April 2009)

Just found this article titled "Nicholas Bolton strikes $4.5m deal to skip vote to wind up BrisConnections" and in there it states:



> Mr Rowe said "it appears" from the ASX documents that Thiess John Holland, the main contractor for the project, had purchased Mr Bolton's votes for $4.5 million but would not become a unitholder.




... so Thiess John Holland does not become a unit holder - they simply purchased votes from Bolton  
So is Bolton still a unit holder???

Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25332806-643,00.html


----------



## Enzyme (14 April 2009)

alphaman said:


> Impressive indeed, and he did it with minimal risk. I used to think he got into the game only because he bought BCSCA by mistake, but now I think maybe he did plan something like this all along. Outcome bias is powerful indeed.
> 
> Anyway this should make him trader of the year.



There is absolutely no doubt that he knew of the liability before he purchased the shares.

That was in the findings from the court case from Victorian Supreme Court - look for the link posted a week or so ago.  Bolton had two ways of buying shares for ASI:  A broker and his comsec account.  The court heard that Bolton instructed his broker to buy the $47k worth of BCSCA, but the broker refused because of the liability.  So he then went out and brought them anyway through his comsec account.


----------



## Prospector (14 April 2009)

sails said:


> ]. so Thiess John Holland does not become a unit holder - they simply purchased votes from Bolton
> So is Bolton still a unit holder???
> 
> Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25332806-643,00.html




Which means he still has the shares, and now the money to pay for the next instalment?  So he has sold other people's proxies to a higher bidder.


----------



## alphaman (14 April 2009)

sails said:


> ... so Thiess John Holland does not become a unit holder - they simply purchased votes from Bolton
> So is Bolton still a unit holder???
> ]



Now that's weird. i've always thought initial substantial holder notice means just that, you have to be a holder.


----------



## Absolutely (14 April 2009)

sails said:


> Just found this article titled "Nicholas Bolton strikes $4.5m deal to skip vote to wind up BrisConnections" and in there it states:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think probably Leighton are the holder. Thiess John Holland are probably their proxy. Very confusing but I don't think Bolton holds anymore.


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2009)

sails said:


> Just found this article titled "Nicholas Bolton strikes $4.5m deal to skip vote to wind up BrisConnections" and in there it states:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps a second deal has been struck to transfer the BCSCA units from Leighton to Macquarie and/or QIC


----------



## steve999 (14 April 2009)

Where's Sunder?

Further proof that you can't really hold the sellers liable for the actions of the buyer. I'm sure Bolton didn't tell them what he planned to do prior to purchase.


----------



## Judd (14 April 2009)

Folks, please read the ASX release by LEI.  

http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=00943933

It explains the lot, especially the Deed of Agreement which is an Attachment to LEI's announcement.


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2009)

It was Leighton holdings who hit the panic button.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20090414/pdf/31h1plj89s590c.pdf



> Thiess John Holland said it had approached Australian Style Investments last Wednesday to secure its proxies for the BrisConnections meeting. This action was taken to maximise the opportunity to ensure the viability of the project and to secure the jobs of the many thousands of workers, subcontractors, consultants and suppliers contributing to the project.


----------



## skc (14 April 2009)

So Nick still holds the securities and is liable for the installment payments (assuming the status quo remains).

I guess he's going to exercise his put option on the securities so he doesn't have to pay the $154m.

Wasn't there an expiry date to his put option? Anyone remember that date?


----------



## yttrium (14 April 2009)

Obviously Bolton sees no problem with offloading his shareholding via an off-market transfer. Tigerboi's comments are very pertinent here, as he intimated that the eastlink tunnel, at around 10 km, cost around 800 million in 2001. This might mean that there were some extremely lucrative contracts to protect.


----------



## Mc Gusto (14 April 2009)

sails said:


> Just found this article titled "Nicholas Bolton strikes $4.5m deal to skip vote to wind up BrisConnections" and in there it states:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Keeerrrreeect. This is what i have heard...the vote was bought but not the units. there is a lot of misrepresentation in the press at the moment. I have this from as close to the source as you can get


----------



## investorpaul (14 April 2009)

Judd said:


> Folks, please read the ASX release by LEI.
> 
> http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=00943933
> 
> It explains the lot, especially the Deed of Agreement which is an Attachment to LEI's announcement.




So Bolton gave Leighton/Theiss his proxies, but remains the holder only until the close of the meeting today. I.E. by close of business today he will hold no briscon units Thats how i read it, any other views?


----------



## Judd (14 April 2009)

skc said:


> So Nick still holds the securities and is liable for the installment payments (assuming the status quo remains).
> 
> I guess he's going to exercise his put option on the securities so he doesn't have to pay the $154m.
> 
> Wasn't there an expiry date to his put option? Anyone remember that date?




No.  He will not own the shares after today.  READ the bloody attachment to this post.  He has done a smart piece of greenmail with LEI.


----------



## jackson8 (14 April 2009)

i am sure mr bolton would have known what he was doing right from the start
he must have known that a project of that size with the amount of money spent on it that someone would come in with an offer to stop it from being wound up

no wonder he did not turn up at the meeting

would be wanting to dissappear for awhile as i am sure there are a lot of other sp holders feeling a bit jilted at him selling them out.


----------



## skc (14 April 2009)

Judd said:


> No.  He will not own the shares after today.  READ the bloody attachment to this post.  He has done a smart piece of greenmail with LEI.




Where do you read that?

The deed clearly states that "ASI remains the registered and beneficial holder of all the units". Nick sold the proxies, not the units. There is no debate about that.

Nick still needs to off load his liability somehow.


----------



## sails (14 April 2009)

skc said:


> So Nick still holds the securities and is liable for the installment payments (assuming the status quo remains).
> 
> I guess he's going to exercise his put option on the securities so he doesn't have to pay the $154m.
> 
> Wasn't there an expiry date to his put option? Anyone remember that date?




It's probably anyone's guess what Bolton might do next.  If he still holds the units, he would presumably continue to have the rights of a major share holder with a bit of extra cash now.  And he's not the only one with major holdings in this stock now.

Probably more twists and turns to come...


----------



## Mc Gusto (14 April 2009)

Judd said:


> No.  He will not own the shares after today.  READ the bloody attachment to this post.  He has done a smart piece of greenmail with LEI.





Don't read that at all. I can see the proxy was bought but bolton remains the holder of units...or ASI at least.

Am i missing something??


----------



## Largesse (14 April 2009)

skc said:


> Where do you read that?
> 
> The deed clearly states that "ASI remains the registered and beneficial holder of all the units". Nick sold the proxies, not the units. There is no debate about that.
> 
> Nick still needs to off load his liability somehow.






err....... remember the contentious put option he struck......

consider it exercised 


blalalalalalalasdasdwords


----------



## investorpaul (14 April 2009)

skc said:


> Where do you read that?
> 
> The deed clearly states that "ASI remains the registered and beneficial holder of all the units". Nick sold the proxies, not the units. There is no debate about that.
> 
> Nick still needs to off load his liability somehow.




See Item 4 point c under the deed, i think that covers it. He basically says Bolton will remain a unit holder up until the end of the meeting after that he wont own any briscon.

Obviously its in there so that Leighton doesnt have to buy the units if for some reason Bolton voted for the resolution


----------



## Judd (14 April 2009)

Mc Gusto said:


> Don't read that at all. I can see the proxy was bought but bolton remains the holder of units...or ASI at least.
> 
> Am i missing something??





Clause 4(c) of the Deed of Agreement refers.  He remains the holder until the close of the meeting PROVIDED all resolutions fail (Clause 2). And he or ASI have delivered all proxies to LEI or its nominees.

Investorpaul beat me to it!


----------



## skc (14 April 2009)

Judd said:


> Clause 4(c) of the Deed of Agreement refers.  He remains the holder until the close of the meeting PROVIDED all resolutions fail (Clause 2). And he or ASI have delivered all proxies to LEI or its nominees.
> 
> Investorpaul beat me to it!






investorpaul said:


> See Item 4 point c under the deed, i think that covers it. He basically says Bolton will remain a unit holder up until the end of the meeting after that he wont own any briscon.
> 
> Obviously its in there so that Leighton doesnt have to buy the units if for some reason Bolton voted for the resolution




WHAT!

That clause simply says ASI agrees to remain the holder until end of today. Where does it say that it is no longer the holder after today???

You guys should never sign any contracts.


----------



## Mc Gusto (14 April 2009)

skc said:


> WHAT!
> 
> That clause simply says ASI agrees to remain the holder until end of today. Where does it say that it is no longer the holder after today???
> 
> You guys should never sign any contracts.




quote of the day - it just avoids him selling them (sas if there was a buyer). he still has the units trust me

the put option isa another story entirely though


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2009)

ASI and Bolton Obligations Item 4 point c:



> Remain the registered and beneficial holder of all ASI units, and not grant any right or interest in or in respect of the ASI Units to any other person (except TJ or it's nominee under clause 4(a)), up until the time at which the 14 April Meeting is closed.



Upon first reading that I sould say that Bolton has sold the units as of the end of the meeting but it is not absolutely explicit and hence open to interpretation.

If Leighton and Bolton interpret the statement differently then that will be interesting.


----------



## investorpaul (14 April 2009)

skc said:


> WHAT!
> 
> That clause simply says ASI agrees to remain the holder until end of today. Where does it say that it is no longer the holder after today???
> 
> You guys should never sign any contracts.




I understand what you mean, as i said in my first post I asked how other people interpreted it. I am open to being wrong.

It just strikes me as odd how it all has played out. Who cares if they get 4.5m but still have tens of millions in liability


----------



## Mc Gusto (14 April 2009)

investorpaul said:


> I understand what you mean, as i said in my first post I asked how other people interpreted it. I am open to being wrong.
> 
> It just strikes me as odd how it all has played out. Who cares if they get 4.5m but still have tens of millions in liability




trust me he has not sold the units - he sold the votes.

this is clear from the asx statement. there is no way leightons would pay 4.5m for 177m of debt....


----------



## mikeyfinn111 (14 April 2009)

Mc Gusto said:


> trust me he has not sold the units - he sold the votes.
> 
> this is clear from the asx statement. there is no way leightons would pay 4.5m for 177m of debt....




Wrong...read this....

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aNBZ2YifSHoY


..


----------



## Mc Gusto (14 April 2009)

mikeyfinn111 said:


> Wrong...read this....
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aNBZ2YifSHoY
> 
> ...




once again it is the reporting of the australian. the units still belong to ASI trust me


----------



## Junior (14 April 2009)

This article specifically explains that he has sold the Voting rights attached to his units:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25332983-26103,00.html


----------



## skc (14 April 2009)

mikeyfinn111 said:


> Wrong...read this....
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aNBZ2YifSHoY
> 
> ...




Totally with Mc Gusto. LEI did not buy the units from Nick. 

LEI would have incurred a liability of $154m, and would have taken a $50-75m hit to their bottom line straight away. The BCS units will not be worth anywhere the $2 LEI would have paid for them.

Mikey, you have found a wrong story from Bloomberg. Email the reporter and claim a reward


----------



## bluey (14 April 2009)

But any idea why on earth Bolton would want to retain his stake in BCS given the liable debt?

If I read correctly - Bolton has waived most if not all of his rights in regards to challenging the company/management by accepting $4.5m.

Am I missing something - if he hasn't sold his stake to TJH - what is Bolton up to??


----------



## mikeyfinn111 (14 April 2009)

Mc Gusto said:


> once again it is the reporting of the australian. the units still belong to ASI trust me




If your right then his only option is his put option with Williams. My hat goes off to him, but now there is even more of a grim outlook for the retailers who still hold as their white knight has fled the army. Kind of feel guilty for transferring to Nick but if it wasnt me then it would have been someone else. Hope Maq can still create a deal for the retailers but now that there is any danger of the project failing....why would they??


----------



## adman0001 (14 April 2009)

Absolutely said:


> The "White Knight" for retail investors has turned in to the grim reaper. This bloke will not be popular but he has saved himself to the detriment of all other retail holders.
> 
> There will be a huge backlash from the retail investors. If I were him, I'd be leaving the country fast.




I've heard he was in Bankok over the weekend, protesting against the G20 summit...................you see, he can also turn Rudd's plane around!


----------



## Absolutely (14 April 2009)

skc said:


> Totally with Mc Gusto. LEI did not buy the units from Nick.
> 
> LEI would have incurred a liability of $154m, and would have taken a $50-75m hit to their bottom line straight away. The BCS units will not be worth anywhere the $2 LEI would have paid for them.
> 
> Mikey, you have found a wrong story from Bloomberg. Email the reporter and claim a reward




You would think Bolton wouldn't do a deal like this to leave himself still exposed to the $154M. The $4.5M doesn't help him with that. So there is something else at play here. Possibly the put option but I doubt it. We will see. One way or another I reckon Bolton wont be holding much longer.


----------



## ice (14 April 2009)

My interpretation is that LEI bought the units but would not have been registered in time to vote at the meeting,  hence the proxy deal.
Ask yourself why would Bolton sell his proxy and be stuck with the financial liability when the proxy was used against him.
Occam's razor.

ice


----------



## Judd (14 April 2009)

skc said:


> Where do you read that?
> 
> The deed clearly states that "ASI remains the registered and beneficial holder of all the units". Nick sold the proxies, not the units. There is no debate about that.
> 
> Nick still needs to off load his liability somehow.






Mc Gusto said:


> Don't read that at all. I can see the proxy was bought but bolton remains the holder of units...or ASI at least.
> 
> Am i missing something??




Arrrhhh.  You're right.  Apologies.  And thank the Good Lord that I don't enter into contracts with myself - or anyone else.


----------



## sails (14 April 2009)

mikeyfinn111 said:


> If your right then his only option is his put option with Williams. My hat goes off to him, but now there is even more of a grim outlook for the retailers who still hold as their white knight has fled the army. Kind of feel guilty for transferring to Nick but if it wasnt me then it would have been someone else. Hope Maq can still create a deal for the retailers but now that there is any danger of the project failing....why would they??




But at this stage, he hasn't fled - looks like he's still in there...

Also, this story has been mysteriously quiet on the main media.  I don't think it's ever been headline news on the TV despite it possibly being a journalists dream story.  Have the media been told to keep it steady?  Something we may never know.  I expect the meeting today might trigger a bit more interest - only time will tell.

I imagine no-one will want the world watching if these Mums and Dads are wrenched from their homes.  Wouldn't look good for any of the powers that be.  Hopefully, the remaining retail holders will still find a way out.  Why they haven't already jumped at the opportunities that have already been presented to divest themselves of their units is beyond me.  But I also acknowledge that I obviously don't know all the facts and I am sure they have had their reasons.


----------



## nathanblack (14 April 2009)

he can always donate to charity?

i wonder how the charity faired? numbers acquired?what vote? deals made?


----------



## sirius (14 April 2009)

If you guys wish to see the latest in this sham check out the pdf. It was posted on the ASX today from Brisconnect. The statement is from ASI asking shareholders to vote for the resolutions at todays meeting IN CAPITAL LETTERS. There is mention of a date (7th April). ASI does the deal on the 8th April. Surely they new what was going on. If Bolton was so strong about the winding up and acting on his statements, how could he cave in so quickly??? Talk about this guy digging himself in deeper. He has just let the door open to major litigation from all sides. If you read page 2 (of the statement) it reaffirms he is full of BS and it makes it clear to me now that he does not understand the postion he has got himself into.


----------



## Absolutely (14 April 2009)

sirius said:


> If you guys wish to see the latest in this sham check out the pdf. It was posted on the ASX today from Brisconnect. The statement is from ASI asking shareholders to vote for the resolutions at todays meeting IN CAPITAL LETTERS. There is mention of a date (7th April). ASI does the deal on the 8th April. Surely they new what was going on. If Bolton was so strong about the winding up and acting on his statements, how could he cave in so quickly??? Talk about this guy digging himself in deeper. He has just let the door open to major litigation from all sides. If you read page 2 (of the statement) it reaffirms he is full of BS and it makes it clear to me now that he does not understand the postion he has got himself into.




Yep this would be illegal and he will be exposed. But don't think he's that stupid. He's got lawyers who would be advising him through this. Still think there is more to this then we know about at the moment.


----------



## Enzyme (14 April 2009)

ice said:


> My interpretation is that LEI bought the units but would not have been registered in time to vote at the meeting,  hence the proxy deal.
> Ask yourself why would Bolton sell his proxy and be stuck with the financial liability when the proxy was used against him.
> Occam's razor.
> 
> ice




I'm with you, ice.  There isn't anything odd here. Bolton has sold the shares and both Leighton's and Brisconnections have filed a change in substantive shareholding notice with the ASX.  The extra clauses in the form were just to ensure Leighton's got what they paid for as the transfer of shares couldn't be completed in time.


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2009)

Can voting rights to listed securities legally be sold in isolation to the underlying ownership of the shares ?


----------



## matty2.0 (14 April 2009)

isn't nick bolton looking to wind this company up?

why don't unit holders join him and bring down macbank, since maintaining the company in its current form will result in unforseen liability payments?


----------



## sails (14 April 2009)

Bloomberg have posted a correction to their first article which further confirms that Bolton didn't sell his units:



> (Corrects to say Leighton bought voting rights in headline, first and second paragraphs.)
> 
> April 14 (Bloomberg) -- Leighton Holdings Ltd. bought the voting rights on 19.8 percent of BrisConnections shares to ensure the company managing A$4.8 billion ($3.5 billion) of road projects survived a shareholder vote today to liquidate it.




http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aNBZ2YifSHoY&refer=germany

I suppose he was paid well to vote as they wanted.  It appears that TJH didn't want to own the units, just wanted to ensure the voting went according to plan - who knows...


----------



## sails (14 April 2009)

matty2.0 said:


> isn't nick bolton looking to wind this company up?
> 
> why don't unit holders join him and bring down macbank, since maintaining the company in its current form will result in unforseen liability payments?




Matty2 - a lot of water has passed under the bridge today - to get the whole story go back and read todays posts on this thread.

Bottom line (according to the media reports, etc)  is that Bolton was paid $4.5m provided he voted against his own resolutions at the meeting today plus a few other conditions - which he apparently did.  General consensus is that he still owns his units.  What's next is anybody's guess...


----------



## matty2.0 (14 April 2009)

sails said:


> Matty2 - a lot of water has passed under the bridge today - to get the whole story go back and read todays posts on this thread.
> 
> Bottom line (according to the media reports, etc)  is that Bolton was paid $4.5m provided he voted against his own resolutions at the meeting today plus a few other conditions - which he apparently did.  General consensus is that he still owns his units.  What's next is anybody's guess...




Sorry.
Been at work all day. 
Yea read the news;

_Nicholas Bolton sells deciding share of BrisConnection fate for $4.5mFont Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print By Tony Grant-Taylor | April 14, 2009 
Article from:  The Courier-Mail 
THE man behind a bid to wind up BrisConnections has voted against his own plan - then sold his voting rights for $4.5 million._


Too bad ... many people were looking up to Bolton ... sort of like David and Goliath ... woop back to reality ...


----------



## MeToo (14 April 2009)

Result of meeting of Brisconnections.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20090414/pdf/31h1s1cy0j47tc.pdf

No resolution passed.


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2009)

JAB_Charity said:


> As far as the 10am 14 April meeting is concerned: BCSCA transfers were required to be registered with the Link share registry service by close of business THU 9 April and Proxies were required to be faxed to BrisConnections or Link by 10am SUN 12 April.
> 
> So we are not of course now talking to new prospective BCSCA sellers about 14 April voting matters. All those instructions are set and I'm sorry that we will only be able to make them known through our actions at the meeting.
> 
> ...



David,

Was today's events as much of a suprise to you is it was to everybody else ?


----------



## adman0001 (14 April 2009)

Ohh, I'm pretty sure he know's what he's doing, he's kept his cards close the whole way through,there's a lot to be played out yet, but he's currently just flown out of banger's down to phuket for a while....


----------



## Knobby22 (14 April 2009)

What's going to happen with the charity now?

What a story this has turned out to be!


----------



## investorpaul (14 April 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> What's going to happen with the charity now?
> 
> What a story this has turned out to be!




How any charity can get into this is beyond me. Regardless of how big the potential returns could be unless you 100% know what your doing, have the legal team to back it up and are crazy (aka bolton) i cant see why you would touch it.

unless of course the charity is fulfilling its charter by buying units off mum and dads thus removing their liability for them


----------



## dmagnus (14 April 2009)

$50k for $4.5M, nice trade


----------



## Macquack (14 April 2009)

alphaman said:


> Anyway this should make him *trader of the year*.




More apt would be double-crossing scumbag of the year.

His company should be renamed "Un-Australian" Style Investments.

From Bolton's own website



> ASI believes it to be in the *best interest of all unit holders* to *wind up the Trusts now *and distribute any net salvageable value, if any, of the assets of the Trusts (including work in progress) back to unit holders.




Lucky he did not go to the meeting, he may not have come out alive.


----------



## steve999 (14 April 2009)

Macquack said:


> Lucky he did not go to the meeting, he may not have come out alive.




If you read his agreement, he wasn't allowed to attend the meeting. 

He may or may not be a scumbag, but he didn't create the mess. Of course he is trying to profit from it. Macquarie/Brisconnections still came up with the mess in the first place.


----------



## Macquack (14 April 2009)

steve999 said:


> If you read his agreement, he wasn't allowed to attend the meeting.
> 
> He may or may not be a scumbag, but he didn't create the mess. Of course he is trying to profit from it. Macquarie/Brisconnections still came up with the mess in the first place.




As if, he was going to attend the meeting?

Macquarie/Brisconnections did create the mess in the first place, BUT Bolton made an undertaking to vote for the wind up of the company/trust. He asked all unit holders to vote for the wind up and then did the opposite himself. This is a very low act.


----------



## Absolutely (14 April 2009)

Macquack said:


> As if, he was going to attend the meeting?
> 
> Macquarie/Brisconnections did create the mess in the first place, BUT Bolton made an undertaking to vote for the wind up of the company/trust. He asked all unit holders to vote for the wind up and then did the opposite himself. This is a very low act.




Yes and one would question the legality of it. It's akin to market manipulation in my view.


----------



## nth brisbanite (14 April 2009)

dmagnus said:


> $50k for $4.5M, nice trade




Not a nice trade at all.  Just a "double cross" to all those who were naive enough to believe in him.  I wonder whether he'll be able to sleep at night.


----------



## skc (14 April 2009)

dmagnus said:


> $50k for $4.5M, nice trade




He has had a full legal team working for him for some time. A QC isn't cheap so I reckon he's got costs north of $1m. It's still a nice trade, but the risk-reward was probably closer to 1:4.

The risk of complete loss was quite high, as LEI really didn't have to pay him for his proxies, esp. after Mac bought the 8%. The wind-up resolution was never going to go through.



Macquack said:


> As if, he was going to attend the meeting?
> 
> Macquarie/Brisconnections did create the mess in the first place, BUT Bolton made an undertaking to vote for the wind up of the company/trust. He asked all unit holders to vote for the wind up and then did the opposite himself. This is a very low act.




I agree. It is a smart but unconscionable move. He may have to pay for it one way or another. Retail shareholders may sue him for deceptive behaviour, or someone may greet him in a dark alley with a sledge hammer!


----------



## steve999 (14 April 2009)

Macquack said:


> Bolton made an undertaking to vote for the wind up of the company/trust. He asked all unit holders to vote for the wind up and then did the opposite himself. This is a very low act.




I'm not supporting Bolton's move at all. But then again, we have no idea what the final outcome is going to be regarding retail investors so I'll wait until then...

Also, given the number of shares that had been for sale, there was nothing stopping any of the other investors (or anybody else) from buying them all up and doing the same thing, or perhaps something a bit less underhanded.

How it ever got to the position that one random person could own such a large part of what is supposedly an enormous project is the bigger problem.d


----------



## steve999 (14 April 2009)

skc said:


> Retail shareholders may sue him for deceptive behaviour, or someone may greet him in a dark alley with a sledge hammer!




This is the bit I have a problem with. Even if Bolton is laughing at the retail shareholders etc then I still think people should be going after those higher up the chain. Bolton is just an easy target because it is always easier to hate an individual rather than a company. If we blame Macquarie or Comsec for example, which specific person do we sledge hammer? It's too hard so it's easier to blame Bolton.


----------



## robots (14 April 2009)

hello,

should be some carnage at this joint if all the anti-capitalists are true to the cause:

http://www.bcsunitholders.com.au/contact_us.php

Queens St

thankyou
robots


----------



## Struzball (14 April 2009)

I don't understand the hostility.

The retail investors found themselves stuck owing $500,000+
Bolton offered to everyone he will take their liability off their hands.  He did this.

Then he _created_ the vote,  he chose to essentially vote as if he hadn't done anything in the first place.

So basically, Bolton has saved the asses of countless people who would be bankrupt by the time of payment, (and made a small fortune in the mean time).

What exactly has he done to make anythign worse for anyone if he never popped his head up in the first place??

Once again, it's Brisconnections that created a company designed to fail to lure in people who couldn't afford repayments and continue trading on the ASX with no concern for more people getting sucked into their scam.


----------



## Macquack (14 April 2009)

robots said:


> hello,
> 
> should be some carnage at this joint if all the anti-capitalists are true to the cause:
> 
> ...




robots, being a neighbour of Nick "did the bolt" Bolton down there in St Kilda, have you noticed if he has any security guards posted at his Fitzroy Street office/cell.


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2009)

With regard to whether or not Bolton has actually sold the units or just the voting rights, the ABC's 7:30 report was explicit in stating that he still faced the upcoming instalment liability along with 900 other unitholders.

The link to the program segment is below but at the time of writing the transcript was not yet available.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2542856.htm


----------



## Julia (14 April 2009)

sails said:


> Also, this story has been mysteriously quiet on the main media.  I don't think it's ever been headline news on the TV despite it possibly being a journalists dream story.  Have the media been told to keep it steady?  Something we may never know.  I expect the meeting today might trigger a bit more interest - only time will tell.



Sails, it has been on every ABC Radio news bulletin throughout today plus a couple of times yesterday. Also a detailed report on both "The World Today" and "PM" current affairs programme today.
 Then the 7.30 Report did an item on it this evening.


----------



## MeToo (14 April 2009)

Bolton must have sold his units to LEI, or else LEI wouldn't lodge a substantial holder's notice.

But question remain, why didn't LEI just purchase on market, as it would be cheaper, unless it saw Bolton as being the main problem and bought him out.

By the way Bolton ASI did not make offers to everyone to take liability off their hands as stated by Struzball.  But he did ask for their proxy.


----------



## Julia (14 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> With regard to whether or not Bolton has actually sold the units or just the voting rights, the ABC's 7:30 report was explicit in stating that he still faced the upcoming instalment liability along with 900 other unitholders.
> 
> The link to the program segment is below but at the time of writing the transcript was not yet available.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2542856.htm




Yep, that was my understanding also.   He must have some further moves to make.

I do feel for any remaining retail investors who must be feeling they are living in an endless nightmare.


----------



## sails (14 April 2009)

Julia said:


> Sails, it has been on every ABC Radio news bulletin throughout today plus a couple of times yesterday. Also a detailed report on both "The World Today" and "PM" current affairs programme today.
> Then the 7.30 Report did an item on it this evening.




Yes, it's been on business affairs, newspapers and on radio, but doesn't seem to be getting prime time TV too much.  I haven't seen it on the main evening news until today, and even then, it was just a short clip.  Whenever I have mentioned it to non-trading friends, they have been totally unaware of it.  The media are obviously aware of what is happening and are capable of creating quite a dramatic story for the remaining unit holders, but for whatever reason, they seem to be choosing not to at this stage.


----------



## Nyden (14 April 2009)

Struzball said:


> I don't understand the hostility.
> 
> The retail investors found themselves stuck owing $500,000+
> Bolton offered to everyone he will take their liability off their hands.  He did this.
> ...




Didn't unit holders give him their proxy with the agreement that he would vote for his own resolutions? The whole reason he had this 'power' to sell, was because he fooled people into giving up their voting rights!

This whole thing is just a mess, honestly; just wind it up and be done with it.


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2009)

MeToo said:


> Bolton must have sold his units to LEI, or else LEI wouldn't lodge a substantial holder's notice.
> 
> But question remain, why didn't LEI just purchase on market, as it would be cheaper, unless it saw Bolton as being the main problem and bought him out.



I would agree although it's not absolutely explicit in the conditions of the notice (this was discussed earlier today in this thread). The media in general seem to think otherwise however. 

LEI's other media reliease (Thiess John Holland act to secure at least 10000 jobs) only states that Thiess John Holland appached ASI last Wednesday to secure it's proxies for the meeting. 

Hopefully more details will emerge tomorrow.



Julia said:


> Yep, that was my understanding also.   He must have some further moves to make.
> 
> I do feel for any remaining retail investors who must be feeling they are living in an endless nightmare.



I still think that in the end retail unitholders will be let off the hook. Plenty of sleepless nights in the meantime for them though, unfortunately.


----------



## yttrium (14 April 2009)

> I still think that in the end retail unitholders will be let off the hook. Plenty of sleepless nights in the meantime for them though, unfortunately.




Zachary

If there is one lesson from Mr Bolton, surely it is that we have to make our own escape and not rely on the benevolence of others. Jumping off the train might seem daunting, but is the destination any better?

If you own these things on the 29th, the liability is yours. Thankfully, the dilemma is not mine, but I still think that Brisconnections should respond to Justice Robson's judgement as it may be of assistance to shareholders wanting to get out.


----------



## JAB_Charity (14 April 2009)

Hello All -- am back in Melbourne.

Interesting day with BrisCon at the BrisConCentre.

The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust is approaching a 5% stake in BrisConnections (BCSCA).

The charitable trust is still actively acquiring BrisConnections units by way of share transfer donations.  And , yes, we received some more donations in Brisbane.

I did happen to have a telephone conversation with Nicholas Bolton on 8 April when Nick called me some 30 minutes after BrisConnections announced on the ASX that the Macquarie deal had been unsuccessful.  It was some 10 mins into our conversation when I got the impression that Nick was not so well informed on the breaking developments.  When I pointed out that the Macquarie proposal had failed he seemed to be a bit stunned and I suggested that he call me back after he had consulted with his advisors.

Nick did not call me back nor send me any further emails.  It seems that not long after we spoke on 8 April that Nick was then likely propositioned by Leightons for $4.5m.

It does not surprise me that Nick took the money and ran.  In my opinion -- Nick is no David before Goliath.


David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://www.Barrow.ORG.AU


----------



## Sunder (14 April 2009)

Talk about Deus Ex Machina...

I was working in Sky News today and saw this on one of the background screens. I don't visit the forums when I'm on client sites though, and haven't had any time to read everyone's posts. Considering I'm booked on client sites the next 11 days straight (including weekends), looks like I'll be missing out a fair bit too. 

But this now is REALLY interesting.


----------



## Judd (15 April 2009)

Maybe very clever.  Re-read LEI's substantial holder announcement again.

The payment of $4.5m is to be made to Australian Style *Holdings* in return for the proxies of Australian Style *Investments* which actually holds the BSC partially paid units.  Separate companies.  Should, and I assume it is not, ASH not be responsible for the liabilities of ASI nor ASI be able to call upon the cash held in ASH.........

You can guess the rest - as I am.


----------



## Struzball (15 April 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Enzyme said:


> I saw in the fine print of the recent ASX substantitive shareholder notices that people are paying him $1,305 each in costs for him to take their shares.




MeToo and Nyden, Bolton taking shares/liability for $1305, not votes.


----------



## moXJO (15 April 2009)

It's an interesting story overall. 
What would the majority of ASFer's do if $4.5 mill were dangled in your face?
Scumbag or not, it was a ballsy move for a young fellow.


----------



## skc (15 April 2009)

Struzball said:


> I don't understand the hostility.
> 
> The retail investors found themselves stuck owing $500,000+
> Bolton offered to everyone he will take their liability off their hands.  He did this.
> ...




Imagine this story (in Lord of the Ring setting)...

The Shire was under attack from the Orcs and all the little hobbits were scared and worried. Gandolf rode into the Shire, rallied everyone and tried to build up their defense (using his own contractors so he made money on the construction). On the eve of the attack, however, Gandolf did a deal with the evil white wizard Saruman. He was paid $4.5m and left the Hobbits to meet their own fate. 

Now - the Hobbits are no worse off then they started. But would they still invite Gandolf over for a cup of tea the next time they meet?


----------



## Prospector (15 April 2009)

skc said:


> Now - the Hobbits are no worse off then they started. But would they still invite Gandolf over for a cup of tea the next time they meet?




And would Gandolf really give a damn if they didnt?


----------



## sails (15 April 2009)

An excerpt from this article: Stunned investors vent fury at chairman - doesn't look like Jim has a cup of tea in mind...



> Alan Bond's pugnacious former bankruptcy adviser, Jim Byrnes, who represents a US hedge fund that is BrisConnections' second-biggest investor, is now threatening a class action against Mr Bolton. "He's not going to get (the $4.5 million), I can promise you that," Mr Byrnes said. "He's just ruined his corporate life forever … I'd trust Mr Bolton like I'd trust a rabbit with a lettuce leaf."




The article also describes a little of what went on in the meeting yesterday.


----------



## steve999 (15 April 2009)

> Mr Rowe hailed the failure of the bid to wind up BrisConnections as "the right thing for unit holders", but said he was "very sympathetic" to retail investors (who make up 70 per cent of BrisConnection's share register) left with expensive liabilities.




I know who I'd be annoyed at. Rowe is claiming that the right thing is for retail investors to be hit with a bill they can't pay.

And Macquarie could always declare they would pay instead.

Investors could also have purchased enough shares to be in Bolton's position.


----------



## Julia (15 April 2009)

steve999 said:


> Investors could also have purchased enough shares to be in Bolton's position.



Steve, I'd guess that many of the investors who discovered their liability would (a) never have begun to thought of any such move, and (b) be too shocked and fearful to consider buying more shares.

I'm still astonished at the ballsiness of young Bolton.  Not too many 26 year olds would take on Macquarie et al.


----------



## sails (15 April 2009)

ABC report: BrisConnections not optimistic about investor lifeline



> The BrisConnections chairman says he is not optimistic about reaching a deal to help investors who say they cannot make payments on their shares.




It would be interesting to know how many unwitting retail investors are actually still holding.  We have read reports that some have transferred to Bolton, Jim Byrnes and JAB charity. Was thinking that if the number of retail holders diminishes significantly, perhaps there will be less effort to get the remaining ones out.


----------



## steve999 (15 April 2009)

Julia said:


> Steve, I'd guess that many of the investors who discovered their liability would (a) never have begun to thought of any such move, and (b) be too shocked and fearful to consider buying more shares.
> 
> I'm still astonished at the ballsiness of young Bolton.  Not too many 26 year olds would take on Macquarie et al.




He's done well out of it assuming he can hold on to the $4.5 million. I just get annoyed at people getting annoyed at Bolton... (No opinion yet as to whether what he did was good/bad etc.)

Macquarie purchased some shares to try to block him, they sold the shares to the retail investors in the first place, and if they chose to they could buy the shares back and save the retail investors.


----------



## sails (15 April 2009)

Here's an excerpt on the news report of Bolton's response: Bolton defends BrisConnections backflip 



> Bolton claims he has not done a deal to relieve him of his obligation and says he will continue to fight to resolve this matter.
> 
> "We are certainly not a passive investor. While I can, I will be doing everything I can to resolve the situation for unit holders. The matter's not over. There's still a big pending issue with the instalments and that needs to be resolved."




Only time will tell what his intentions really are...


----------



## Warren Greenspan (15 April 2009)

I'm not a legal person but I wonder if there's grounds for a *royal commission *into this mess.


----------



## Prospector (15 April 2009)

I would love to know how the ASF'er holders are doing?  Have you transferred the liability?  Would like to think you are all good now. Any chance of a roll call?


----------



## investorpaul (15 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> I would love to know how the ASF'er holders are doing?  Have you transferred the liability?  Would like to think you are all good now. Any chance of a roll call?




There has been so many opportunities for unit holders to get rid of their holdings it would be interesting to know how many retail shareholders remain.

Off the top of my head there has been:

1. Bolton (19.9%)
2. Macquarie Bank buying 8%
3. Bryne acting for the US hedge fund (???%)
4. Barlow Charity (5%)
5. Another one (not sure on name) (???%)

can anyone fill in the blanks


----------



## drsmith (15 April 2009)

yttrium said:


> Zachary
> 
> If there is one lesson from Mr Bolton, surely it is that we have to make our own escape and not rely on the benevolence of others. Jumping off the train might seem daunting, but is the destination any better?
> 
> If you own these things on the 29th, the liability is yours. Thankfully, the dilemma is not mine, but I still think that Brisconnections should respond to Justice Robson's judgement as it may be of assistance to shareholders wanting to get out.



Personally, if I held them I would be looking to jump off the train for the reasons you have stated above.

That being said though the underwriters are not going to be able to extract blood from a stone even though they have the legal right to recover the debt. There's also broader politics involved given that the road is being built on behalf of the Queensland Government. That therefore leads to the possibility of some sort of deal being worked out between DB/Macquarei/QIC and the Queensland Government to relieve retail unitholders of their obligations.


----------



## drsmith (15 April 2009)

JAB_Charity said:


> Hello All -- am back in Melbourne.
> 
> Interesting day with BrisCon at the BrisConCentre.
> 
> ...



I'm tempted to ask how you voted at the meeting but that is now history. With regard to donors from the meeting I'm suprised you wern't swamped.

If worst comes to the worst will the charity be able to pay the $1 per unit instalment on it's 5% holding and if not what will be the fate of the charity ?


----------



## Enzyme (15 April 2009)

Warren Greenspan said:


> *I'm not a legal person* but I wonder if there's grounds for a royal commission into this mess.



That can mean only one thing:  You must be an illegal person!

Guards!  Guards!

I'll get my coat...


----------



## investorpaul (15 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> I'm tempted to ask how you voted at the meeting but that is now history. With regard to donors from the meeting I'm suprised you wern't swamped.
> 
> If worst comes to the worst will the charity be able to pay the $1 per unit instalment on it's 5% holding and if not what will be the fate of the charity ?




To add to the above questions, were you surprised that you only got 5%? were you making people aware/announcing that you were after their units? if so why dont you think everyone donated them?

It just seems so odd that unit holders have been given a way out, yet havnt taken it. I surpose people who are not up to date with their info or dont use internet forums might not be aware of all the people/groups interested in acquiring units.


----------



## investorpaul (15 April 2009)

EDIT:

Off the top of my head there has been:

1. Bolton (19.9%)
2. Macquarie Bank buying 8%
3. Bryne acting for the US hedge fund (13%)
4. Barlow Charity (5%)
5. Another one (not sure on name) (???%)

Thats 45.9% so far


----------



## steve999 (15 April 2009)

http://business.theage.com.au/business/in-defence-of-bolton-20090415-a6vf.html

Sums up what I'm thinking.


----------



## drsmith (15 April 2009)

investorpaul said:


> EDIT:
> 
> Off the top of my head there has been:
> 
> ...



Of the institutional holders other than Macquarie, QIC has 10%, World Capital 7% and Leehman Brothers 4.5%.

http://economics.com.au/?p=2667

Another 39m units (10%) are for sale on the ASX.


----------



## Calliope (15 April 2009)

How Nick Bolton Pocketed a Cool $4.5m.

By Terry McCrann
April 15, 2009 12:00am







> HOW to stiff the big guys and pocket $4.5 million - and KEEP the $4.5 million. That's the story of young Nick Bolton and BrisConnections.
> 
> Big guys? They don't come much bigger than Leighton Holdings, Macquarie Bank and Deutsche Bank – all of whom are going to be well and truly, and deservedly, out of pocket.
> 
> ...


----------



## MeToo (15 April 2009)

Not sure whether this question has been asked or answered, but as April 21st is coming real soon (next week), I just have a question regarding the liability.  

According to Brisconnections communications, 21 April is date when liability for payment is determined.  

As I have already signed an acceptance form to sell my share to a third party, if the transfer has not occurred before 21 April, then I am liable for the $1 call.  If the transfer occur after 21 April, does it mean the new owner is not liable, but I am still liable.

IE, if transfer after 21 April, I need to pay $1 but at the same time I don't have any shares anymore.


----------



## Mitsimonsta (15 April 2009)

From http://www.auda.org.au/news-archive/auda-15042009/

(AuDA controls the .au domain space)



			
				AuDA said:
			
		

> *AuDA terminates Australian Style Pty Ltd (t/a Bottle Domains) registrar accreditation
> *
> 15/Apr/2009
> 
> ...




Karma is a bitch.


----------



## sails (15 April 2009)

MeToo said:


> Not sure whether this question has been asked or answered, but as April 21st is coming real soon (next week), I just have a question regarding the liability.
> 
> According to Brisconnections communications, 21 April is date when liability for payment is determined.
> 
> ...




I would suggest getting legal advice urgently - the answer may depend if there are any conditions to your transfer.  Also suggest talking to the person who is prepared to take your units to see what they have to say.  Perhaps talk to someone from the Australian Shares Association to see if they can shed any light on the technicalities with so little time left.

All the best with it MeToo - hope it all works out for you.  Let us know how you get on.


----------



## investorpaul (15 April 2009)

MeToo said:


> Not sure whether this question has been asked or answered, but as April 21st is coming real soon (next week), I just have a question regarding the liability.
> 
> According to Brisconnections communications, 21 April is date when liability for payment is determined.
> 
> ...




Is there any reason why the transfer would not go through by the 21st? When did you sign the acceptance form?


----------



## JAB_Charity (15 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> ...will the charity be able to pay the $1 per unit instalment on it's 5% holding and if not what will be the fate of the charity ?




Our refrain is still: There are many possible outcomes between now and when the 29 April 2009 liability may crystalise for unitholders on that date (only).

And we also note that if there is any shortfall in meeting the liability on 29 April, then of course the Underwriters will step in to meet the commitment, and there will then be a Public Auction of the forfeited units on or around 4 June 2009 [see ASX 9 Dec 2008 BCSCA announcement Fact Sheet para 18] -- at which time the long-term value of the project may well have improved in line with the views we share with others (including BrisConnections themselves) on the investment fundamentals of the project.



investorpaul said:


> To add to the above questions, were you surprised that you only got 5%? were you making people aware/announcing that you were after their units? if so why dont you think everyone donated them?
> 
> It just seems so odd that unit holders have been given a way out, yet havnt taken it. I surpose people who are not up to date with their info or dont use internet forums might not be aware of all the people/groups interested in acquiring units.




We have been working a viral campaign, commencing 7 April 2009 (only 8 days) -- including our presence on this forum.

Informational lags have impeded the spread of our active BCSCA acquisitions -- but momentum is now building.  The unitholders who discover us really want to reduce their exposure to the possible downside.  We expect this will likely intensify up until the current 22 April 2009 last day to transfer without call liability (the liability of which will then formally crystalise later, as we know, on 29 April for unitholders on the registry at that date).

We continue to actively acquire BrisConnections units by way of share transfer donations.

So if you happen to know of any unitholders who may be interested in donating their BCSCA units to charity, we would appreciate if you might suggest that they visit our website for more information and help us get the word out:

http://www.barrow.org.au/


David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust


----------



## JAB_Charity (15 April 2009)

Hello MeToo,



MeToo said:


> Not sure whether this question has been asked or answered, but as April 21st is coming real soon (next week), I just have a question regarding the liability.
> 
> According to Brisconnections communications, 21 April is date when liability for payment is determined.
> 
> ...




BrisConnections have advised the market on 2 March 2009 that unitholders have until WED 22nd April 2009 for transfers to be registered with the Link share register -- and by extension we add: with any BCSCA instalment call liability arising on the 29 April 2009 being fully transfered with the change of ownership up until the close of that 22 April day.

Link Market Services share register will only accept Originally Signed off-market transfer forms -- no faxes and no scanned emails.

This can lead to some delays as parties that may be in different geographical areas must send the original document to each other for signing and then lodgement with Link.

When our charity receives delivery of an off-market transfer form, we scrutinise the form for completeness (most unitholders send us a draft via email in advance of sending the Original Signed via courier/post).

We then very diligently execute the transfer form immediately for The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust and send the complete Signed Original form to the Link Market Services share register in Sydney.

We also email the donating unitholder with a scanned copy of the fully executed off-market transfer form for their records.

And following this notification we suggest that the donator check the Link share register [1300 554 474] in coming days to ensure that the BCSCA units have in fact been fully transfered.


David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://www.barrow.org.au/


----------



## Absolutely (15 April 2009)

JAB_Charity said:


> Our refrain is still: There are many possible outcomes between now and when the 29 April 2009 liability may crystalise for unitholders on that date (only).
> 
> And we also note that if there is any shortfall in meeting the liability on 29 April, then of course the Underwriters will step in to meet the commitment, and there will then be a Public Auction of the forfeited units on or around 4 June 2009 [see ASX 9 Dec 2008 BCSCA announcement Fact Sheet para 18] -- at which time the long-term value of the project may well have improved in line with the views we share with others (including BrisConnections themselves) on the investment fundamentals of the project.
> 
> ...




David,

I don't get it. I just don't get it!

There is very little information about the "Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust" on your website. It does not seem to me that this is a long established or well known charity, or one that has a great deal of resources (money). So obviously, you also do not intend paying the future installments and are banking on some other outcome. But I don't see how you are expecting to make money from the arrangement.

Without being rude, I am seriously wondering if you are legitimate.


----------



## oldblue (15 April 2009)

It seems to be a very high risk strategy to hold these units, unless:

-One has reason to believe that one's voting rights have a value, a la Nicholas Bolton.

-One has reason to believe that unitholders will be excused the obligation of making the further call payments.


----------



## JAB_Charity (15 April 2009)

Hello Absolutely,



Absolutely said:


> David,
> 
> There is very little information about the "Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust" on your website. It does not seem to me that this is a long established or well known charity, or one that has a great deal of resources (money). So obviously, you also do not intend paying the future installments and are banking on some other outcome. But I don't see how you are expecting to make money from the arrangement. ...





We are one of about 1,000 Prescribed Private Funds (PPF) in Australia.

For details of these charitable structures please see this link:

http://www.ato.gov.au/nonprofit/content.asp?doc=/content/8724.htm


Aussie Stock Forums has been a good space to communicate our views -- indirectly functioning as a weblog for us with lots of thoughtful intereactions.

And the Google rankings have been very helpful for us to provide information about our interest in acquiring BrisConnections (BCSCA) units by way of share transfer donations.

May I suggest that you and other Forum users search on JAB_Charity and review my previous posts and if there are any particular comments or aspects you would like more information on I could then respond to those queries.

I believe the following link will generate the past JAB_Charity posts:

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/search.php?searchid=1904160


David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://www.barrow.org.au/


----------



## drsmith (15 April 2009)

JAB_Charity said:


> Our refrain is still: There are many possible outcomes between now and when the 29 April 2009 liability may crystalise for unitholders on that date (only).
> 
> And we also note that if there is any shortfall in meeting the liability on 29 April, then of course the Underwriters will step in to meet the commitment, and there will then be a Public Auction of the forfeited units on or around 4 June 2009 [see ASX 9 Dec 2008 BCSCA announcement Fact Sheet para 18] -- at which time the long-term value of the project may well have improved in line with the views we share with others (including BrisConnections themselves) on the investment fundamentals of the project.



With regard to any public auction of forfeited units in early June, what are your expectations in terms of auction price per unit and specifically do you expect it to cover all the liability associated with the second instalment ($1.00 per unit or more) ?


----------



## nathanblack (15 April 2009)

hi JAB_charity,
everytime someone questions your trusts ability to pay the upcoming installment you avoid answering directly. you imply that if you are not the registered holder on april 22 then your not liable and that is your out?

but then you always continue on to say you are and will continue to accumulate donations up to that date.

so which is it? are you looking to divest your stake or accumulate?

if you dont pay the $1 you forfeit your shares = $0 gain (loss of time and fees)

if you do pay the $1 they will trade at under $1, if thats your intention why not buy on market after installment paid(if you believe in long term viability)

i think you have a plan to have a majority stake. for what gain im unsure.


----------



## shag (15 April 2009)

i havt read the blog but dont people get wacked for this sort of behaviour. like ethics have to come into play somewhere, his move was in the same league as bryers in the blue chip saga.
he would make good hardfill for the project....wouldnt that be something, the old kings cross special, or the sydney runway burial....
im sure mr putin could get a mate to do a job real cheaplike....


----------



## Macquack (15 April 2009)

I agree with nathanblack and Absolutely and am skeptical of David Barrow's intentions.

Owning 5% means JAB Charity will be up for $19.5 million in the next $1 call, and I doubt they would have that much laying around in the petty cash tin.

So my conclusion is, this is a publicity exercise by David Barrow to promote the JAB Charity.


----------



## sails (15 April 2009)

Macquack said:


> I agree with nathanblack and Absolutely and am skeptical of David Barrow's intentions.
> 
> Owning 5% means JAB Charity will be up for $19.5 million in the next $1 call, and I doubt they would have that much laying around in the pretty cash tin.
> 
> So my conclusion is, this is a publicity exercise by David Barrow to promote the JAB Charity.




Does it matter?  JAB Charity (as others before them) are offering a much needed lifeline.  Even if the charity can't pay the next instalment, are the underwriters going to be much worse off?  

Would you take the lifeline from someone who really wants the shares if it meant avoiding the loss of everything you owned?  Your children's and even grandchildren's future? If there are any risks to the current unit holders to accept such a lifeline, wouldn't it have to be a whole lot less than the risks they are currently facing?

We went through this whole same thing of turning everything inside out when Bolton was looking for the gifting of shares + his processing fee.   Justice Robson did not see anything legally wrong with the transfers of those shares.  What if JAB charity prefer not to disclose their entire business plan publically - is that a problem?

There are still some small investors mixed up in this big boys business where they can get hurt.  Isn't it better to let the bigger boys have the units they want and let them do battle with the company? 

Just my queries from the outside looking in...

Oh, and doesn't look like Anna Bligh has any intention of helping out the retail investors either according to this article:  Queensland refuses BrisConnect bailout


> The Queensland Government will not help investors in BrisConnections with a bailout, Premier Anna Bligh says.


----------



## Prospector (15 April 2009)

Macquack said:


> So my conclusion is, this is a publicity exercise by David Barrow to promote the JAB Charity.




To whom though?  To us few posters who happen to post on an internet forum in a specific thread about BCSCA?  I think that seriously overstates the influence of ASF in broader circles of humanitarian purposes. So hardly an effective marketing ploy to advertise your benevolent fund to the www in general.

I dont see it as a publicity exercise in that sense, maybe in terms of having access to BCSCA holders, but nothing more than that really.

I tell you what, if I had held BCSCA I would be down on my knees begging for JAB Charity to take the shares off my hands.  Hell, I might just even believe in religion because I would see it as a lifeline.  Not that I 'get' why JAB wants these things, but who am I to question their strategies.


----------



## Macquack (15 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> To whom though?  To us few posters who happen to post on an internet forum in a specific thread about BCSCA?  I think that seriously overstates the influence of ASF in broader circles of humanitarian purposes.




I mean publicity in the wider media, not just here at ASF.

JAB Charity has already got media coverage and the big "photo opportunity" will come on judgement day when the charity fails to pay up and the heat will be on the underwriters (Macquarie and Deutsche) whether or not to bankrupt a charity.


----------



## sails (15 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> ...I tell you what, if I had held BCSCA I would be down on my knees begging for JAB Charity to take the shares off my hands.  Hell, I might just even believe in religion because I would see it as a lifeline.  Not that I 'get' why JAB wants these things, but who am I to question their strategies.




I totally agree, Prospector.  I know if it was me, I would have thrown them at the first life line real fast (with the approval of legal advice to ensure the transfer was legal, of course) and happily paid any processing fees and not begrudged if he made a lot of money with them.

It beats me why the guys on here get so strung up on having to know every little detail of a potential purchaser's strategies.  I think it only adds to the confusion and nervousness of any retail unit holders reading this site.


----------



## Macquack (15 April 2009)

sails said:


> It beats me why the guys on here get so strung up on having to know every little detail of a potential purchaser's strategies.  I think it only adds to the confusion and nervousness of any retail unit holders reading this site.




Just having my two bobs worth like you sails.

Reading everybodies angle on this may give insight into potential stategies and outcomes such as predicting what Bolton was really up to before he double crossed his fellow unitholders.


----------



## sails (15 April 2009)

Macquack said:


> Just having my two bobs worth like you sails.
> 
> Reading everybodies angle on this may give insight into potential stategies and outcomes such as predicting what Bolton was really up to before he double crossed his fellow unitholders.




No problem with the two bobs worth!  

I just think there may still be some pretty frightened unit holders who possibly read here - and some of these in-depth discussions might make them afraid to offload their units for fear of getting into more trouble.

Fear can be a terribly crippling thing to thought processes making decision making extremely difficult.


----------



## yttrium (15 April 2009)

> JAB Charity has already got media coverage and the big "photo opportunity" will come on judgement day when the charity fails to pay up and the heat will be on the underwriters (Macquarie and Deutsche) whether or not to bankrupt a charity.




Much too smart for that I think. When you see the train heading for the cliff, do you leave the passengers to their fate or try to get them off? Is Mr Bolton worried by his shareholding? Not yet anyway.


----------



## jackson8 (15 April 2009)

Absolutely said:


> David,
> 
> I don't get it. I just don't get it!
> 
> ...




i think that the confusion may be in the lack of understanding of what a
 PRESCRIBED PRIVATE FUNDS (PPFs) actually is 

http://www.ato.gov.au/nonprofit/content.asp?doc=/content/8724.htm

or this link   http://www.ato.gov.au/docs/PPF_glines_v3.rtf


from the above  document

26.	The purpose of a PPF as stated by the Prime Minister in his press release of 30 March 2001 is to provide businesses, families and individuals with greater flexibility to start (and donate into) their own trust funds for philanthropic purposes. Whilst donations on occasions may be solicited from the public, the primary source of donations must be from the businesses, families and individuals who established the fund. (see Para 4)


i myself have wondered why anyone whether it be a  philanthropic fund or anyone else would want to take on the liability of these shares with the upcoming payments due.

i would expect that as a registered PPF with the australian taxation dep. and government the fund would have to provide adequate transparency in its soliciting to the general public


----------



## drsmith (15 April 2009)

sails said:


> No problem with the two bobs worth!
> 
> I just think there may still be some pretty frightened unit holders who possibly read here - and some of these in-depth discussions might make them afraid to offload their units for fear of getting into more trouble.
> 
> Fear can be a terribly crippling thing to thought processes making decision making extremely difficult.



For frightened investors the fear of Macquarie's bailiff would well and truely outweigh the fear of JAB_Charity's motives. From an investor perspective they can fill out and sign the transfer form to donate their units and the worst that can happen is they are not accepted.

If David was waving transfer forms around at the meeting yesterday I'm suprised he was not crushed to death by stampeding unitholders.


----------



## nathanblack (15 April 2009)

i still dont know why Bolton would want to bankrupt himself/company. sure he structured the deal in a way that should keep administrators off the $4.5mil but it wont stop them prying and looking for loopholes.

not to mention, bankrupty has lasting ramification for a person or business. being a director or obtaining loans.

he should donate all shares and remove any doubt. make it quick , clean and final. save his credit rating and keep his shell company.

imagine that, JAB = bolton 20% + donations 5% and rising. thats some blocking stake. you could get someone onto the board and really shake things up.


----------



## Macquack (15 April 2009)

nathanblack said:


> i still dont know why Bolton would want to bankrupt himself/company. sure he structured the deal in a way that should keep administrators off the $4.5mil but it wont stop them prying and looking for loopholes.
> 
> not to mention, bankrupty has lasting ramification for a person or business. being a director or obtaining loans.
> 
> he should donate all shares and remove any doubt. make it quick , clean and final. save his credit rating and keep his shell company.




Bolton has a put option to off load his shares.



nathanblack said:


> imagine that, JAB = bolton 20% + donations 5% and rising. thats some blocking stake. you could get someone onto the board and really shake things up.




Even if Bolton donated his shares to JAB Charity, they would come with no voting rights attached (the $4.5m deal).


----------



## sails (15 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> For frightened investors the fear of Macquarie's bailiff would well and truely outweigh the fear of JAB_Charity's motives. From an investor perspective they can fill out and sign the transfer form to donate their units and the worst that can happen is they are not accepted.
> 
> If David was waving transfer forms around at the meeting yesterday I'm suprised he was not crushed to death by stampeding unitholders.




Yes, I don't understand  the hesitation.  Perhaps some are hoping they might be bought out at a higher price; perhaps some are scared; perhaps some for various reasons are completely unaware of their predicament.  

I see bcsca has now completed it's last day of trading.  Market depth is empty - all sellers are now removed.  So there is no hope of anyone buying them out online now.


----------



## nathanblack (15 April 2009)

true he has a put option but he also delibrately setup ASH and ASI in a way that would protect his $$$. Perhaps just keeping his options open, put, donate or bankrupt or an unknownn plan.

Really the $4.5million has removed all voting rights? or did it just buy his vote at that one meeting? sure if and when he disposes of the shares the new owner will want voting rights at some point in future.


----------



## drsmith (15 April 2009)

Bolton might be hoping that the underwriters take it private by offering a token amount (say, up to $0.05 per share) to existing unitholders and hence double his dosh. This too could be what David Barrow is punting on.

While unlikely it's not inconceivable. If I was retail unitholder however I would be taking the charity option before taking a punt on this outcome.



sails said:


> Yes, I don't understand  the hesitation.  Perhaps some are hoping they might be bought out at a higher price; perhaps some are scared; perhaps some for various reasons are completely unaware of their predicament.
> 
> I see bcsca has now completed it's last day of trading.  Market depth is empty - all sellers are now removed.  So there is no hope of anyone buying them out online now.



A trade went through late yesterday for 100,000 units so perhaps another punter on the above. No punters today though, just sellers.


----------



## Julia (15 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> I dont see it as a publicity exercise in that sense, maybe in terms of having access to BCSCA holders, but nothing more than that really.
> 
> I tell you what, if I had held BCSCA I would be down on my knees begging for JAB Charity to take the shares off my hands.  Hell, I might just even believe in religion because I would see it as a lifeline.  Not that I 'get' why JAB wants these things, but who am I to question their strategies.






sails said:


> I totally agree, Prospector.  I know if it was me, I would have thrown them at the first life line real fast (with the approval of legal advice to ensure the transfer was legal, of course) and happily paid any processing fees and not begrudged if he made a lot of money with them.
> 
> It beats me why the guys on here get so strung up on having to know every little detail of a potential purchaser's strategies.  I think it only adds to the confusion and nervousness of any retail unit holders reading this site.






sails said:


> No problem with the two bobs worth!
> 
> I just think there may still be some pretty frightened unit holders who possibly read here - and some of these in-depth discussions might make them afraid to offload their units for fear of getting into more trouble.
> 
> Fear can be a terribly crippling thing to thought processes making decision making extremely difficult.




I completely agree with both your thoughts above, Prospector and Sails.

Suspect the difference between how we think and the blokes' "need to know why a charity is acting as it is" etc, is simply the different way the sexes think.

We women will usually focus on the emotional distress involved by holders of these units, whereas the blokes are more likely to be into what the possible mechanics of various deals might be.

If I held these shares, then for sure I'd be sending flowers with the shares to anyone prepared to take them off my hands.


----------



## banco (15 April 2009)

nathanblack said:


> true he has a put option but he also delibrately setup ASH and ASI in a way that would protect his $$$. Perhaps just keeping his options open, put, donate or bankrupt or an unknownn plan.
> 
> Really the $4.5million has removed all voting rights? or did it just buy his vote at that one meeting? sure if and when he disposes of the shares the new owner will want voting rights at some point in future.




I think his put option is worthless.  He'd spend the next five years in court if he exercised it.  

If the underwriters offer a deal to the retail investors that they forfeit any money they paid for the units but don't have to pay any installments and Bolton could get in on that he'd come out pretty well (financially anyway).  He's probably spent around a few hundred thousand on legal bills and maybe $100,000 acquiring the units.  He'd still come out well ahead.


----------



## Sunder (15 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> Bolton might be hoping that the underwriters take it private by offering a token amount (say, up to $0.05 per share) to existing unitholders and hence double his dosh. This too could be what David Barrow is punting on.
> 
> While unlikely it's not inconceivable. If I was retail unitholder however I would be taking the charity option before taking a punt on this outcome.




Can you explain what advantage it would be to the underwriter to buy the shares?


----------



## drsmith (15 April 2009)

Sunder said:


> Can you explain what advantage it would be to the underwriter to buy the shares?



A hasty and path of least resistance means of fully privatising it.

Odds I would say about about the same as the last sale price of the units (0.1%) but perhaps there are others more hopeful.


----------



## jumala (16 April 2009)

Julia said:


> I completely agree with both your thoughts above, Prospector and Sails.
> 
> Suspect the difference between how we think and the blokes' "need to know why a charity is acting as it is" etc, is simply the different way the sexes think.
> 
> ...




Some may feel judged by the assumption of emotional distress a certain gender may experiance .                                                                     Here is a good exercise for both;                                                         You execpt a gift of shares 'your experience'                                            I take some of your hands and get some flowers 'my experience'                 win win  i reckon.                                                                            just visiting,   very interesting.                                                                                   Hindsight embraced by fools to impress only themselves.  Ark


----------



## Prospector (16 April 2009)

jumala said:


> Some may feel judged by the assumption of emotional distress a certain gender may experiance . Here is a good exercise for both; You execpt a gift of shares 'your experience'  I take some of your hands and get some flowers 'my experience'   win win  i reckon. just visiting,   very interesting. Hindsight embraced by fools to impress only themselves.  Ark




Huh? All we are saying is that we would be grateful having got into a $1 million liability that someone could take away the debt, and if they are prepared to do that then we wouldnt be too fussed in the 'what is in it for them' issue.  But others are more inclined to ask 'why would you do that'?  

And perhaps women empathise more with the misfortunes of the posters caught up in this, whereas men are more inclined to discuss the mechanics?

Having said all that, you probably should read back over the last fifty pages or so and you will see that Julia, Sails and I have probably contributed a great deal of factual information too!


----------



## KBLagerJnr (16 April 2009)

David Barrow is operating his charity for philanthropic purposes I'd say - to help the smaller investors get out of trouble. If the charity can't meet the call - what's the worst that happens - the charity goes down sure - but the "mums and dads" are out of trouble and essentially - he has taken a burden off those individuals.

However - that would also apply to more informed and larger investors who would also "get a break" at the expense of this charity going under. Not sure how that fits with any ideas of philanthropy.


----------



## Prospector (16 April 2009)

KBLagerJnr said:


> David Barrow is operating his charity for philanthropic purposes I'd say - to help the smaller investors get out of trouble. If the charity can't meet the call - what's the worst that happens - the charity goes down sure - but the "mums and dads" are out of trouble and essentially - he has taken a burden off those individuals.




If that is why he is doing this then I dips me lid to him!


----------



## drsmith (16 April 2009)

KBLagerJnr said:


> However - that would also apply to more informed and larger investors who would also "get a break" at the expense of this charity going under. Not sure how that fits with any ideas of philanthropy.



He could overcome that by putting an upper limit on the number of units the charity would accept from individual unitholders. If for example the limit was 500,000 units he would be assisting all those that purchased $500 worth (minimum parcel) at $0.001.


----------



## sails (16 April 2009)

KBLagerJnr said:


> ...However - that would also apply to more informed and larger investors who would also "get a break" at the expense of this charity going under. Not sure how that fits with any ideas of philanthropy.




I suppose the charity could be selective on which transfers they accept.



Prospector said:


> ...And perhaps women empathise more with the misfortunes of the posters caught up in this, whereas men are more inclined to discuss the mechanics?...




I agree, and apologies for being a bit hard on the guys.  If it weren't for the humanity factor of people still in this deep hole with little time to accept a lifeline, it would be interesting to debate the various possible outcomes for JAB.  Although, the thought did cross my mind that JAB may have a pre-determined out - maybe not a put option, but something along similar lines.  Definitely conjecture on my part - only time will tell...



jumala said:


> ...Hindsight embraced by fools to impress only themselves.  Ark




LOL - call it what you like...
Extraordinary financial history is being made daily before our eyes. This thread contains much of that history to date.


----------



## yttrium (16 April 2009)

I'm surprised.

Here is Trevor Rowe expressing concern for the plight of distressed unit holders, and lamenting that he can do naught for them. Here is David Barrow, offering to acquire unit holders units for free. So why isn't Brisconnections advising the unit holders of this offer? They have taken the time to warn them about all sorts of criminal implications about actions in the past that may have been legitimate all along, so why not make a market announcement pointing to an escape?

My suspicion is that Brisconnections is not about representing the interests of its unit holders. I am totally at a loss to understand why else the message isn't being broadcast far and wide, so that even the most sense impaired distressed unit holder might find out in time.

Forums like this provide a wonderful opportunity for such an altruistic scheme that may otherwise have been ignored.


----------



## drsmith (16 April 2009)

With regard to Brisconnections past statements questioning the validity of  off market transfers to other unitholders such as Bolton it seem that Leighton Holdings woud disagree judging by it's recent purchase of Bolton's voting rights.

They can't have it both ways.


----------



## sails (16 April 2009)

Watchdog investigates: ASIC investigates payment to Bolton


----------



## sails (16 April 2009)

> An ASIC spokesman said: "We were involved in ensuring that unit-holders received the right information for the meeting, and we are now looking into events that unfolded at the meeting."
> 
> The ASX is also investigating whether listed companies BrisConnections and Leighton have met their disclosure obligations




Source: BrisConnections EGM under the microscope


----------



## drsmith (16 April 2009)

sails said:


> Source: BrisConnections EGM under the microscope



The bottom half of that article is even more interesting.



> While Tuesday's deal appears to have disarmed Mr Bolton, BrisConnections may face a new source of trouble in the shape of Melbourne investor David Barrow.
> 
> Mr Barrow has been snapping up BrisConnections units through his Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust and last night told BusinessDaily he had accumulated close to 5 per cent of units on issue, gifted to the trust by other investors.
> 
> ...




Putting 2 and 2 together.....



JAB_Charity said:


> Our refrain is still: There are many possible outcomes between now and when the 29 April 2009 liability may crystalise for unitholders on that date (only).
> 
> And we also note that if there is any shortfall in meeting the liability on 29 April, then of course the Underwriters will step in to meet the commitment, and there will then be a Public Auction of the forfeited units on or around 4 June 2009 [see ASX 9 Dec 2008 BCSCA announcement Fact Sheet para 18] -- at which time the long-term value of the project may well have improved in line with the views we share with others (including BrisConnections themselves) on the investment fundamentals of the project.



David is relying on,

1) An outcome by 29 April 2009 that yields capital for the charity (one slim possibility being a nominal offer to current unitholders to fully privatise Brisconnections).

or,

2) That the Public Auction of forfeited units on or around 4 June 2009 yields more than than the instalment amount beyond those units that the charity wishes to retain by paying the second instalment.

Trevor Rowe's idea of long term might be a bit longer term than that.


----------



## cuttlefish (16 April 2009)

Wow, I've been away and only keeping half and eye on everything thats been going on, but what a turn of events.  There seems to be so much irrational behaviour surrounding this situation, and so many questionable dealings. Quite remarkable.


----------



## jackson8 (16 April 2009)

just listening to abc radio
they have mentioned that it is actually nick boltons sister who holds 99% of the liability and he has been acting on her behalf

also all three parties , bolton,barrow and toll have been in continuing discussions

could there be a possibility of a takeover of the company in the future


----------



## alphaman (16 April 2009)

> He said the trust had bought the units based on the positive statements of BrisConnections management.
> 
> "The long-term 45-year concession, the scarce asset -- the sort of things Trevor Rowe was talking about yesterday," he said.




Good one!


----------



## ngardiner (16 April 2009)

jackson8 said:


> just listening to abc radio
> they have mentioned that it is actually nick boltons sister who holds 99% of the liability and he has been acting on her behalf
> 
> also all three parties , bolton,barrow and toll have been in continuing discussions
> ...




Interestingly enough, the news.com.au story on this seems to be incorrect. It states that she owns 99% of Australian Style Pty Ltd and Australian Style Holdings Pty Ltd which is a great place to be - ASH just inherited $4.5M and Australian Style Pty Ltd owns the domain name company assets that Mr Bolton has (Domain Central, Bottle Domains, etc).

Australian Style Investments Pty Ltd on the other hand owns the $2 liability for the 78 million odd shares. It specifically does not mention that she owns a stake in that business. 

The story is at http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,25341091-462,00.html


----------



## jackson8 (16 April 2009)

okay he has his 4.5 m now what s to stop him transferring his shares to say the Barrow trust 
thus relinquishing his responsibility's
giving Barrow trust a majority and a place on the board


----------



## Mc Gusto (16 April 2009)

jackson8 said:


> okay he has his 4.5 m now what s to stop him transferring his shares to say the Barrow trust
> thus relinquishing his responsibility's
> giving Barrow trust a majority and a place on the board






I think you may be on to something - very close to the mark my firend very close


----------



## drsmith (16 April 2009)

The ABC radio segment on Brisconnections can be accessed from the following link.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/subscribe/twtrss.xml.

The segment on Brisconnections commences at about 18m30s. It includes an interview with David Barrow.


----------



## Mitsimonsta (16 April 2009)

jackson8 said:


> okay he has his 4.5 m now what s to stop him transferring his shares to say the Barrow trust
> thus relinquishing his responsibility's
> giving Barrow trust a majority and a place on the board



Wow... did not think about this. That would give Barrow about 25% of the units would it not? That would be bloody hard for the other involved parties to ignore.

Would cap an absolute masterful stroke of genius I would say. Totally unethical, but genius.



Mc Gusto said:


> I think you may be on to something - very close to the mark my firend very close



Something tells me that yes, this may indeed be the case. I don't expect David to confirm or deny that he may be in discussions with Bolton to accept the ASI holdings....


----------



## drsmith (16 April 2009)

*Re: Standing by unit holders*

Jim,

Is there a means of quick access (such as a website) from which unitholders can access the terms and conditions of your client's offer and also access to a transfer form as David Barrow has done ?


----------



## sails (17 April 2009)

This article could explain why people appear to be holding on to their units and explains some of the flaws that apparently exist in the off market transfer system.  It says Humphrey B Bear has owned bcsca units... 

*Calling Humphrey Bear, please come in*

Much more detail in the article - following is a small except:



> In November BusinessDay highlighted a serious flaw in the off-market transfer system that allows shares to be held in false names, by buying a share in a listed company in the name of a bird named Mr Bud Gerigar.
> 
> The off-market transfer scheme is used to launder money and hide shareholdings. It has been adopted by some BrisConnections unit holders to try to avoid making the next payment due on their units.


----------



## JAB_Charity (17 April 2009)

Hello Sails,

Yes -- we did note this article by Mark Hawthorne of The Age:

*Calling Humphrey Bear, please come in*



> In November BusinessDay highlighted a serious flaw in the off-market transfer system that allows shares to be held in false names, by buying a share in a listed company in the name of a bird named Mr Bud Gerigar. ...





I personally spoke with Mark last week and on seeing The Age article we have immediately written to Mark as follows:




> Regarding your article "Calling Humphrey Bear, please come in" [+17 April 2009] are you suggesting or implying that off-market transfers of BCSCA units to The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust are 'fake' or voidable?
> 
> 
> In our view, the manner in which you have written the article could leave readers with that impression.
> ...





Reading the article closely there is no such positive allegation of any impropriety by The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust, but with so much of the article detailing what appear to be a number of voidable transfers (to fake entities) the unwarranted association is not welcome as readers and unitholders can imagine.

The article does however make a helpful distinction between 'real transfers' and 'fake ones' as follows:



> There are all these real transfers that have happened, and someone will have to track down the fake ones," he said [Melbourne barrister Geoffrey Slater].





Of course with regard to our following comments, and generally, unitholders should obtain their own professional advice.

That said: Our view on the corporate law in relation to off-market transfers is that such transactions would indeed be voidable if the entity to which the unitholder is attempting to transfer the shares is fictitious or is in someway acting in a non-arms-length type of collusion with the unitholder (a nefarious 'common and mutual goal') to willfully evade a liability as the only purpose of the transaction.  Such attemps are rightly voidable.  An example would be setting up a $2 company and then clumsily attempting to transfer the units to this $2 shell -- followed by attempting to sink the company to the bottom of some harbour.  Litigators and regulators see through these types of scams -- and do not let them stand.

It is also our strong view that there is no such voidable transaction in relation to off-market transfers of BrisConnections (BCSCA) units to The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust by way of share donations.

In the view of our charity, this also accords with Justice Robson's recent decision Re Australian Style Investments Pty Ltd [2009] VSC 128 (6 April 2009) 66 at [234]:



> As to the suggestion that ASI has engaged in some sort of improper scheme by having units transferred to it by a deed of gift, I do not accept that submission.  I see nothing improper in a unit holder transferring its units as alleged.  The project imposes liability on persons who are unit holders on a certain date.  On the basis of the submissions before me, I find there is no impropriety per se involved in a person taking steps to ensure that he, she or it is not a unit holder on the instalment date.  It appears that a great many unit holders disposed of their units in October and November of 2008.  It may have been the case that they did so to evade the payment of the instalments.  In any event, it is not necessary for me to make any findings about those matters.





It was only after this judgment was handed down on 6 April 2009 that The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust then entered the market to acquire BrisConnections (BCSCA) units by way of share donations.

We also note that the article under the byline of Mark Hawthorne has made no reference to The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust in the similar article posted not long thereafter in the Fairfax sister paper of The Age, being the Herald Sun:

BrisCon forced into bear hunt

We hope our comments may better inform readers.  And we leave the matter for forum users and readers and the unitholders facing a potential liability on 29 April 2009 to make up their own minds.


David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://www.barrow.org.au


----------



## drsmith (17 April 2009)

JAB_Charity said:


> It was only after this judgment was handed down on 6 April 2009 that The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust then entered the market to acquire BrisConnections (BCSCA) units by way of share donations.



I was wondering why you were so late in entering the fray. Looking back that could have been Leighton's cue as well.


----------



## jim Byrnes (17 April 2009)

*Re: Standing by unit holders*



drsmith said:


> Jim,
> 
> Is there a means of quick access (such as a website) from which unitholders can access the terms and conditions of your client's offer and also access to a transfer form as David Barrow has done ?





It’s very simple, if unit holders wish to take advantage of the Brisbane toll Road offer. They email j.byrnes@alfpl.com , they state there name ( that is the name in which the units are owned ) the number of units owned , the address for mailing purposes , landline and mobile numbers . Finally who there units are with..ie we bought through comsec or e trade ..Whoever? Then within 8 hours an offer will be emailed and a transfer. They, the seller executes, scans and returns .The buyer executes the transfer same day and lodges with comsec or who ever..We get the transfers processed same day as they are lodged, we have all the back office people’s details and get them processed faster than anybody
James W Byrnes & Associates 

j.byrnes@alfpl.com


----------



## sails (17 April 2009)

JAB_Charity said:


> ...Reading the article closely there is no such positive allegation of any impropriety by The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust, but with so much of the article detailing what appear to be a number of voidable transfers (to fake entities) the unwarranted association is not welcome as readers and unitholders can imagine.
> 
> The article does however make a helpful distinction between 'real transfers' and 'fake ones' as follows:......




Hi David,

Please be assured, that in no way was I comparing any transfers to a registered entity such as yours to those discussed in the article.

I posted the article as it explained a possible reason for the apparent lack of interest in holders taking up the offers to transfer these units to an unrelated entity who wants them.  This lack of uptake has been somewhat of a mystery to those of us outside looking in. 

I'm no lawyer, but in my simple perspective as a lay person, I would have thought a transfer is more likely to hold if it is made to an unrelated entity who wishes to acquire them for their own business purposes than to Humphrey B Bear living in Uganda.  

I would have also thought the names alone would put them at high risk of having those types of transfers voided.  I know if it were me, I would prefer, what I consider to be the safer transfer that you and Jim are currently offering, but that is just my opinion without any legal advice.  And I do believe all holders should ensure they have been advised by qualified independent legal advice for their particular circumstances.

You have given some very thoughtful replies, even though we don't fully understand your reasons.  However, with such high stakes, I imagine you do have business and contingency plans in place.

Thank you for your thoughtful replies and hopefully, it will help holders make informed decisions together with sound legal advice.

Is the cut off time for transfers midnight on Wed 22nd?


----------



## drsmith (17 April 2009)

*Re: Standing by unit holders*



jim Byrnes said:


> It’s very simple, if unit holders wish to take advantage of the Brisbane toll Road offer. They email j.byrnes@alfpl.com , they state there name ( that is the name in which the units are owned ) the number of units owned , the address for mailing purposes , landline and mobile numbers . Finally who there units are with..ie we bought through comsec or e trade ..Whoever? Then within 8 hours an offer will be emailed and a transfer. They, the seller executes, scans and returns .The buyer executes the transfer same day and lodges with comsec or who ever..We get the transfers processed same day as they are lodged, we have all the back office people’s details and get them processed faster than anybody
> James W Byrnes & Associates
> 
> j.byrnes@alfpl.com



With regard to the the terms and conditions of your offer has this information been made public and if so where ?

Of particular interest is the following,

*1)* Are you (either yourself or on behalf of your client) charging a fee to transfer the units out of the hands of the retail investor ?

*2)* If so is it a fixed fee (fixed per unit or just a fixed amount regardless of holding (like Nicholas Bolton did)) or are you otherwise varying it depending on individual retail holder circumstances ?

Answers to the above questions are of obvious significance to retail unitholders looking to dispose of their holding so they can compare it with the offer from David Barrow's charity.


----------



## Julia (17 April 2009)

Radio National had a promo to advise "The National Interest" will have a further item on this mess today, aired after the 6pm News.


----------



## jim Byrnes (17 April 2009)

*Re: Standing by unit holders*



drsmith said:


> Jim,
> 
> Is there a means of quick access (such as a website) from which unitholders can access the terms and conditions of your client's offer and also access to a transfer form as David Barrow has done ?






drsmith said:


> With regard to the the terms and conditions of your offer has this information been made public and if so where ?
> 
> Of particular interest is the following,
> 
> ...



Since the last post we have been offered almost 7 million units .BTRL can acquire up to another 20million unit. BTRL preferred to take up larger parcels of 500,000 or more. BTRL has an offer document that provides for a small payment to unit holders. BTRL does not to buy small parcels or units from original IPO unit holders for a reason that will become clear next week.

If however BTRL or its corporate representative are offered a contribution to buy the units and or to assist in meeting legal costs, the corporate representative would be happy to receive payment. However provided the holdings are large enough that would not be required. it cost so far $40k in legal to get all the transfers attended to ...its not cheap ..so you can see why buying 10,000 does not appeal


----------



## investorpaul (17 April 2009)

At the rate things are going there couldn't possibly be too many retail shareholders left. Even though the resolutions failed, it looks like most retail holders have been handed a life line by Jim and Barlow.

Next week will be interesting


----------



## jim Byrnes (17 April 2009)

*charitable trust ???*

I have spoken with David, who doubt has good intentions. The tax act is very specific re charitable donations.

If an item is donated it must be of a value and the consideration is the amount equal to the donation.

Items donated to a charitable organization must be to be deemed a donation at either market value or as per a sworn valuation.

I have Spoken with David and consulted a tax QC (actually I bough him coffee as he is a mate and asked the question and got an answer for the cost of a coffee, )

As I understand it the transfers are being rejected by Comsec an others.

As the transfers do not show a consideration they are likely not to be deemed a gift as they are shown to be valueless and there for as far as the tax act is concerned they fall within part 4a .

David’s Charity needs to resolve all this and fast as they may loose there Charitable status, which clearly is not a good thing.

All transfers will need to be re issued. Re done for the proper consideration of .001 and then re submitted, a receipt equal to the amount of the consideration issued to the seller for there donation being the consideration shown on the transfer .

It would help if the sponsoring brokers new that the documents had been certified by lawyers and thereafter would process the balance of transfers quicker.

Given the current timing, it may be that the Charity will fail to get any of its transfers registered …more problems for unit holders.

Brisbane Toll Road Link, spent over 40,000 with its lawyers processing offers and transfers and getting same reregistered. It’s a tough learning curve and a trap for new players 
James W Byrnes & Associates


----------



## drsmith (17 April 2009)

*Re: Standing by unit holders*



jim Byrnes said:


> Since the last post we have been offered almost 7 million units .BTRL can acquire up to another 20million unit. BTRL preferred to take up larger parcels of 500,000 or more. BTRL has an offer document that provides for a small payment to unit holders. BTRL does not to buy small parcels or units from original IPO unit holders for a reason that will become clear next week.
> 
> If however BTRL or its corporate representative are offered a contribution to buy the units and or to assist in meeting legal costs, the corporate representative would be happy to receive payment. However provided the holdings are large enough that would not be required. it cost so far $40k in legal to get all the transfers attended to ...its not cheap ..so you can see why buying 10,000 does not appeal



If I read the above correctly the unitholder recieves a small payment for their units but this is offset by a contribution to your corporate representative with the latter being a requirement for transfers of unitholdings below a given numerical threshold.

I won't ask for full details but for someone with a unitholding of 500,000 units, what is the nett result in terms of payment for the transfer ?


----------



## JAB_Charity (17 April 2009)

*Re: charitable trust ???*

Dear Jim,



jim Byrnes said:


> If an item is donated it must be of a value and the consideration is the amount equal to the donation.




Basic contract law does not require consideration to be in $cash form.  In our view providing the philanthropic benefit to the charity is adequate consideration.  This is well settled in law.



jim Byrnes said:


> As I understand it the transfers are being rejected by Comsec an others.




To clarify: No transfers are being rejected by any broker.  We are however facing delays in brokers processing the transfers in time to the Link share registry -- as Link will not accept transfer forms direct from parties where there is a CHESS HIN (Broker-sponsored) involved.

So those with holdings registered by CHESS with a broker may care to seek other disposal options, including other buyers in the market.

There is no such problem with those holding SRN "Issue Sponsored" holdings.  And we are processing these speedily



jim Byrnes said:


> As the transfers do not show a consideration they are likely not to be deemed a gift as they are shown to be valueless and there for as far as the tax act is concerned they fall within part 4a .




Again, in our view that is an incorrect interpretation of the basic tenets of contract law.



jim Byrnes said:


> David’s Charity needs to resolve all this and fast as they may loose there Charitable status, which clearly is not a good thing.




In our view there is no such risk.



jim Byrnes said:


> All transfers will need to be re issued. Re done for the proper consideration of .001 and then re submitted, a receipt equal to the amount of the consideration issued to the seller for there donation being the consideration shown on the transfer .




As per above.



jim Byrnes said:


> It would help if the sponsoring brokers new that the documents had been certified by lawyers and thereafter would process the balance of transfers quicker.




Yes -- that would be helpful.  Jim, could your team assist the Charity in this regard?



jim Byrnes said:


> Given the current timing, it may be that the Charity will fail to get any of its transfers registered …more problems for unit holders.




There is a risk for all parties -- buyers and sellers -- that any off-market transfers will not be processed onto the Link share registry before the current close WED 22 April 2009 without payment of calls attaching.  Am sure all parties are giving their best efforts to lodge valid forms and within time transfers.



jim Byrnes said:


> Brisbane Toll Road Link, spent over 40,000 with its lawyers processing offers and transfers and getting same reregistered. It’s a tough learning curve and a trap for new players




We wish you all the best. And thankyou for the information.


David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://www.barrow.org.au/


----------



## jim Byrnes (17 April 2009)

No we don’t interfere with the BTRL payment to unit holders 

We reserve the right from now to refuse to buy certain holdings …we may however on compassionate grounds still acquire at no cost and in fact pay the seller the .00001 offer.
But note we reserve the right to refuse small parcels 
If the seller has 500,000 or more there is clearly no charge and again BTRL pay’s $5-00 for 500,000


----------



## sails (17 April 2009)

*Re: charitable trust ???*



jim Byrnes said:


> I have spoken with David, who doubt has good intentions. The tax act is very specific re charitable donations.
> 
> If an item is donated it must be of a value and the consideration is the amount equal to the donation.
> 
> ...




Looks like there is a fair bit of dangerous territory for unit holders.  It seems that lawyers specializing in corporate law would be required to understand the complexities of legally binding transfers.


----------



## jim Byrnes (17 April 2009)

David 

BTRL can get all Comsec and e trade transfers processed same day.

The broker has a direct link to the registry and uploads all transfers every evening.

E Trade require a statement that the purchaser understand there obligations.

The resent amendment also requires a certification from the buyer on each transfer that they are aware of there obligations.

I suggest that you get a good mid tier firm to review all and certify the docs.

Problem is as I see it you have a whole lot of people who think that they have an agreement with you and that agreement may fail because of transfers exposing the trust to damages claims.

Send me all the parties' details 

Name of shareholder 
Email address 
I will send them a merge email and bulk offer.

This may remove the exposure and assist the unit holders.    

James W Byrnes & Associates 
j.byrnes@alfpl.com 
Direct 612-80901301
J Byrnes cell 614 25 266600


----------



## drsmith (17 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> If the seller has 500,000 or more there is clearly no charge and again BTRL pay’s $5-00 for 500,000



Sorry Jim it was not intention to offend but your previous response on this only at best loosely implied that there was no charge if the seller has 500,000 or more units and there was no specific information on the actual amount you would pay for 500,000 units.

The above though does clarify the situation for unitholders with 500,000 or more units and puts them in an informed position in relation to choosing between your offer and David Barrow's and for that I thank you for the information.


----------



## jim Byrnes (17 April 2009)

the offer documents issued by BTRL pay a seller .00001c per unit 
so 1 mil =$10
2mil = $20 or part there of .

there is no charge by J Byrnes or any related party  whatsoever for 500,000 or more unit sellers .

we reserve the right however to seek paymnet for small transfers . such payment is limited to $1,000 and will go to ALF Australian Litagation Funders .
BTRL actual pays for the transfer costs but the poayment to ALF goes inot the Class action fund


----------



## MeToo (17 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> the offer documents issued by BTRL pay a seller .00001c per unit
> so 1 mil =$10
> 2mil = $20 or part there of .
> 
> ...




That's fair enough.  I don't mind donating, but I only know of this policy since today 17/4/09.  And my small parcel shareholding in Brisconnections have yet to transfer out since I accepted the offer on the April 1st.  All required information has already been sent to relevant party since April 2nd.

Timing is getting too close for comfort.


----------



## Macquack (17 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> the offer documents issued by BTRL pay a seller .*00001c per unit *
> so 1 mil =$10
> 2mil = $20 or part there of .




Should that be .00001*$* per unit?

Big decision, one million shares gets you a big 10 bucks off Jimbo or sweet FA off Davo.

I would go with Jimbo, only because it looks more legal.


----------



## jim Byrnes (17 April 2009)

any offers made prior to today either orally or in email will be maintained and there will be no charge


----------



## drsmith (17 April 2009)

*Re: charitable trust ???*



jim Byrnes said:


> BTRL does not to buy small parcels or units from original IPO unit holders for a reason that will become clear next week.



David,

If you have not allready done so you may wish to ask Jim (in private) his reason for the above.



JAB_Charity said:


> There is a risk for all parties -- buyers and sellers -- that any off-market transfers will not be processed onto the Link share registry before the current close WED 22 April 2009 without payment of calls attaching.  Am sure all parties are giving their best efforts to lodge valid forms and within time transfers.



I note that on the transfer form on your charity's site there is an email address on the transfer form to which unitholders can return the completed form.

With reference a post from Jim (see link below), how quickly are the returned emails processed ?

Aslo, if the donating unitholder does not have access to a scanner (I assume a scanned signature from the seller is a minimum reqiirement for the transfer to take place) would he need to resort to fax ?

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=421708&postcount=1656


----------



## JAB_Charity (17 April 2009)

*Transfering BCSCA Units*



drsmith said:


> With reference a post from Jim (see link below), how quickly are the returned emails processed ?




Email is just for checking.  Transfer forms must be Signed Originals.


David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://www.barrow.org.au/


----------



## drsmith (17 April 2009)

Macquack said:


> I would go with Jimbo, only because it looks more legal.



This has certainly brought out some colourful characters.

Perhpas everybody on the board of his replacement RE would have had a surname starting with B had Nicholas not sold his votes to Leighton.


----------



## jim Byrnes (17 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> This has certainly brought out some colourful characters.
> 
> Perhpas everybody on the board of his replacement RE would have had a surname starting with B had Nicholas not sold his votes to Leighton.




mate could you at least use a nice picture .
am old 
am grey :
am well, fat 
but still vain 
jim


----------



## nathanblack (17 April 2009)

*Re: Standing by unit holders*



jim Byrnes said:


> BTRL does not to buy small parcels or units from original IPO unit holders for a reason that will become clear next week.




We can only assume original holders will be treated in a different way?
My guess is an original owner 
(a) had a prospectus(therefor aware of future liability)
(b) hold smaller amounts(initially worth $1 a share)
(c) how many original holders would still exist(jumped long ago)

So they will either be punished and made to pay 2nd installment because they were fully aware of the obligations (others let off but forfeit shares)

OR;

They will be rewarded for holding. They will lose $1/share versus $0.001/share. Maybe the later will forfeit all holdings whilst the former get a mall buyout?

My guess is if its a negative for Jim to acquire original shares, its most probable he suspects a liability may apply to them which doesnt apply to the rest.

Either way, not worth holding out or taking any risks. Sell, Donate or do whatever you can to dispose of your holdings. This is quickly turning into a game for the big guys only.


----------



## sails (17 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> This has certainly brought out some colourful characters.
> 
> Perhpas everybody on the board of his replacement RE would have had a surname starting with B had Nicholas not sold his votes to Leighton.




LOL - I nearly wrote something about the possibility of the three Bs pulling together yesterday (thought better of it!) - but anyway now there might be 4!  I'm sure Bear would be most co-operative.

To add to the photo gallery, there's a photo of the chief in the link below - from the Courier Mail:
BrisConnections queried by Australian Securities Exchange


----------



## nathanblack (17 April 2009)

I think Humphrey Bear is only interested in being a silent partner.


----------



## bigdog (17 April 2009)

*Business Spectator reports:*

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...he-hook-pd20090417-R6VQA?OpenDocument&src=kgb

Commentary
10:22 AM, 17 Apr 2009
 Robert Gottliebsen

*   Is Bolton off the hook?*

    I found the KGB interrogation of Queensland Treasurer Andrew Fraser very instructive. Fraser is clearly not going to put money into BrisConnections unless he feels that the project is in jeopardy. He will not use tax-payer dollars simply to save small shareholders or underwriters, but he clearly fears that this week's meeting may not have settled the matter and the project might face more threats.

    We now have court actions trying to overturn the meeting and there are other moves in the pipeline due to the simple fact that most of the foreign banks do not want to lend to the project and are looking for a way out.

    The same applies to joint call-underwriter Deutsche. Fraser warns that any major who walks away will find it hard to do business in Queensland in the long term. But there only needs to be one or two court cases that go against BrisConnections to provide a loophole for some to escape, thereby putting the project in jeopardy – hence Fraser’s caution.

    The fact that Leighton was prepared to pay Nick Bolton $4.5 million shows that the majors, probably including the Queensland government, are going to do whatever it takes to keep the project moving. For example, while the failure to disclose the Leighton deal until the BrisConnections meeting is going to be hard to defend, it was clearly a strategic move to stop court actions prior to the meeting.

    Nick Bolton, who saw the weakness in the BrisConnections situation before anyone else, will now faces a challenge to hold on to the money if his companies are required to pay the call.

    In our Conversation Peter Rawling, of lawyers Macpherson and Kelley, showed one way Bolton might have safeguarded the $4.5million:

    "There is a lot of commentary that Nick Bolton remains exposed to Brisconnections, but if normal limited liability principles apply to ASL's (Bolton’s Australian Style) ownership of the BrisConnections shares, Bolton will not be personally liable.

    "Further, if a special purpose subsidiary (SPV) was incorporated to buy the shares, then ASL will also not be exposed. Bolton was reported as having said as much, that the share ownership is 'insulated'.

    “So Bolton will have no personal exposure, he will not be bankrupted. All that will happen, is that a company ultimately owned by him may be liquidated.

    "And if Bolton (or ASL) was paid a procurement fee for agreeing to procure the SPV subsidiary to grant the proxy, that fee would be protected from the liquidation of the SPV. All in all, a good deal for Bolton.”

    Other lawyers will no doubt take a different view of the level of protection Nick Bolton has, but we can be certain that he will be pursued very vigorously in the courts by many of the parties involved.


----------



## jim Byrnes (17 April 2009)

*Re: Standing by unit holders*



nathanblack said:


> We can only assume original holders will be treated in a different way?
> My guess is an original owner
> (a) had a prospectus(therefor aware of future liability)
> (b) hold smaller amounts(initially worth $1 a share)
> ...




No don’t want to open the flood gates to a million questions but .

Original unit holders may have been induced into purchasing units from Mac bank as there investment advisor …in which case Mac have a real big problem and the real damages claim could be 390m
People who bought elsewhere but relied on a number of key points in the PDS would be sufficient to allow all retail investors the opportunity to seek a damages claim of full return for there funds ..390m

Then there are the more resent buyers whose damages is far less 

So I am trying to keep the original low volume mum in dads in tact as I feel that the worst result is they will get out free and the best result is they will get back some money .

That’s a very brief snap shot, and we are spending 20,000 a day in costs working this up , so please don’t ask to mush yet .







sails said:


> LOL - I nearly wrote something about the possibility of the three Bs pulling together yesterday (thought better of it!) - but anyway now there's 4!  I'm sure Bear would be most co-operative.
> 
> To add to the photo gallery, there's a photo of the chief in the link below - from the Courier Mail:
> BrisConnections queried by Australian Securities Exchange



Yeah instead of the three bears 
Speak no evil ...that’s me 
See no evil ...David 

And dirty rotten scoundrel That’s Nick 

I am going to buy that Kid the John Williams CD.. you know the one about standing by your mates when there in a fight ...hey true blue .

Not very Anzac of you nick


----------



## jim Byrnes (17 April 2009)

bigdog said:


> *Business Spectator reports:*
> 
> http://www.businessspectator.com.au...he-hook-pd20090417-R6VQA?OpenDocument&src=kgb
> 
> ...





i like the thought process , but how do you get around 180 to 184 of the corps act .
how is the fee is it is as you discribed reasonable and not an uncomercial transaction . the alternante is that it may also have an hint of obtain finacial benifit by deception


----------



## Prospector (17 April 2009)

Humphrey B Bear, being a talent from Adelaide is in the process of being declared Bankrupt!


----------



## nathanblack (17 April 2009)

Thanks Jim for your quick response. It seems your client has thought it through nicely and buying bigger parcels is cost effective for you AND will result in the best outcome for holders.

A win-win situation in anotherwise messy pile of $hyte.

Goodluck with the transfers, i hope you reach your target and i hope your offer reaches as many people as possible.


----------



## drsmith (17 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> mate could you at least use a nice picture .
> am old
> am grey :
> am well, fat
> ...



I chose that one for of all things the smile. David's pic was the hardest as Paint would not open the image from his charity's website.

I did consider putting Georgia Bolton in there as well but quickly realised the rest would not have been noticed (at least by male readers).


----------



## JAB_Charity (17 April 2009)

*Re: BCS - Charity ($?)Consideration*

Hello All,


There have been some good questions on the forum regarding the need for Consideration in the transfer of shares by way of donations to a Charitable Trust.


It is well established in contract law that Consideration is something of value that moves from the promisee (giver) to the promisor (receiver).  And that Consideration is an essential element of a valid contract.


In the case of commercial share transactions: Consideration can be the value of the shares in exchange for $cash.

In the case of a gift to a Charitable Trust: in these transactions the Consideration can be the value of the shares given in exchange for the positive benefit (sense of good feeling, for instance) that comes from providing a gift to a worthy cause -- it could even be described as the 'promise' to have an opportunity to do an act of giving that helps others beyond ourselves.

So Consideration is not limited to payment in $cash.  It is value -- operating broadly -- that is essential.


Take a look for instance at the ASX Standard off-market share transfer form.

See point 9. Consideration  $A

Note also the standard terms of transfer wording:



> I / We the registered holder/s and undersigned seller/s for the above *consideration* do hereby transfer to the above name/s hereinafter called the Buyer/s the securities as specified above standing in my/our name/s in the books of the above named Company, subject to the several conditions on which I/We held the same at the time of signing hereof and I/We the Buyer/s do hereby agree to accept the said securities subject to the same conditions. I/We have not received any notice of revocation of the Power of Attorney by death of the grantor or otherwise, under which this transfer is signed (if applicable). To sign as power of attorney you must have already lodged it with the registry or your broker as appropriate or enclose a certified copy with this transfer.





Now compare this to the sorts of share transfer forms at the Sharity -- "Shares to Charity" website:

http://www.sharity.com.au/share_from.html

For instance, download the Salvation Army Share Transfer Form

Note again the standard terms of transfer wording:



> I/We the registered holder(s) and undersigned Seller(s) for the above *consideration* do hereby transfer to the above name(s) hereinafter called the Buyer(s) the securities as specified above standing in my/our name(s) in the books of the above named Company, subject to the several conditions on which I/we held the same at the time of signing hereof and I/we the Buyer(s) do hereby agree to accept the said securities to the same conditions. I/we have not received any notice of revocation of the Power of Attorney by death of the grantor or otherwise, under which this transfer is signed.




But notice that there is no box in which to place $consideration amount on the transfer shares to Charity form.


This is because $cash consideration is not required to cement a contractual exchange of shares by way of a charitable donation.


It is value that is important -- which can include those benefits that flow from the very kernel / heart of what it means to make a gift.


David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://barrow.org.au/


----------



## Julia (17 April 2009)

An interview with Andrew Fraser, Qld Treasurer, in conversation with the blokes from Business Spectator, on the Qld Government's role in the ongoing fiasco.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...-FRASER-pd20090416-R66MX?OpenDocument&src=kgb


----------



## drsmith (17 April 2009)

Julia said:


> An interview with Andrew Fraser, Qld Treasurer, in conversation with the blokes from Business Spectator, on the Qld Government's role in the ongoing fiasco.
> 
> http://www.businessspectator.com.au...-FRASER-pd20090416-R66MX?OpenDocument&src=kgb



If this does come down to the ultimate game of chicken it will be interesting to see who blinks first. The government or Macquarie.


----------



## nathanblack (17 April 2009)

JAB, can donors claim a tax deduction for donating to your trust? if so what value is placed on the shares donated? the last traded price perhaps $0.001per share?

The most important thing right now is for as many retail holders as possible to dispose of there shares. You and Jim Byrnes are possibly the only two methods now. I urge all holders to dispose of there shares/liability.

But at some point there are tax implications. The donation will trigger a capital gail/loss event, so a value must be placed on them in order to claim a real loss or to claim tax deduction for there donation.


----------



## sails (17 April 2009)

From The Age: Brisconnections investment pay off: CEO



> Brisconnections investors who stick with the troubled $4.8 billion project will be rewarded in due course, CEO and general manager Ray Wilson says.




Soothing words for investors with money, but no mention of the fate of mum and dad investors who can't pay up...


----------



## JAB_Charity (17 April 2009)

Hello Nathanblack,



nathanblack said:


> JAB, can donors claim a tax deduction for donating to your trust? if so what value is placed on the shares donated? the last traded price perhaps $0.001per share?




The original purchase price of Shares may also be eligible for a tax deduction for the donor of up to $5,000.  See this ATO Link for more details.


In short: the donation is valued at the date of transfer (inc based on the last closing price).


So at $0.001per share the unitholder would need 5mil units to achieve the full $5,000 tax deduction



nathanblack said:


> But at some point there are tax implications. The donation will trigger a capital gail/loss event, so a value must be placed on them in order to claim a real loss or to claim tax deduction for there donation.




In the absence of on-market prices the unitholder may care to value the units for CGT purposes at the last known trading price.


David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://barrow.org.au/


----------



## jim Byrnes (17 April 2009)

David, Mate i don’t want to rain on your parade .But you keep refereeing to contract law and so forth.
One of our companies Co Directors is a retired Tax Qc who i meet regularly to go over litigation matters.

If the transferor places a nil value on the transfer, then there is nil consideration and this causes all sorts of issues.
What act are you talking about? Please be specific. Act, corporations act , tax act , ??
Do you have a tax ruling re donation at nil value?
Mate i think its a great idea, just needs to be properly constituted by some clever lawyers .
Who devised this scheme? 
What law firm has certified what you’re doing? 
What tax account has signed of? 
are you subject to an Audit , if so has your auditor signed of .

Personally i think they are not charitable donations they are gifts to a charity.
if so there is a few problems and i think the transaction is subject to unwinding .
Hope i am wrong.
Who signed of on this?
Mate you need to clarify this.

We went to great lengths to get our docs water tight 
Whitens certified everything, they are specialist and accredited experts in this field.
Ray Whitten was the chairman of the NSX .

Who prepared your agreements


----------



## jim Byrnes (18 April 2009)

for the record.
 Brisbane Toll road link can purchase this weekend only up to 20million units 
prefer parcels of 500k and up wards 
we can effect all transfers on monday and tuesday 
people who email me on  j.byrnes@alfpl.com
 will  get an offer in the morning early with a transfer .
we reserve the right to levy a charge on any parcels under 500,000 and or reject purchases of same 

so were on the same page 
500k or more no charge we pay you 
under 500k we MAY ask you to pay $1,000 which will go to the litagation funder . We will waive this cost to pensioners


----------



## nathanblack (18 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> If the transferor places a nil value on the transfer, then there is nil consideration and this causes all sorts of issues.




The JAB link seems to explain it.

See this ATO Link for more details.
http://ato.gov.au/nonprofit/content.asp?doc=/content/61197.htm&page=1#P181_10545

It is a tax deductible "gift". and the value/consideration is the last traded price($0.001) up to $5000.

and the consideration given from JAB to the donor is satisfaction of knowing they have donated to a worthy cause.


----------



## jim Byrnes (18 April 2009)

nathanblack said:


> The JAB link seems to explain it.
> 
> See this ATO Link for more details.
> http://ato.gov.au/nonprofit/content.asp?doc=/content/61197.htm&page=1#P181_10545
> ...



That does not help 
The company has not been listed for 12 months .This means that these shares is outside of the charitable mandate


----------



## sails (18 April 2009)

Jim, what happens with scared mums and dads who might have transferred their units to fake names such as Humphrey, Bud Gerigar, etc, but who might now think it is safer to transfer them to you?  How do you accept a transfer from a fake identity?  Or do they have to transfer back to themselves before you can take them?

It was just a passing thought I had this morning - and there may not even be any in this position, but if there is, I wondered if it's a question some might be afraid to ask. 

It's hard to believe anyone would transfer shares to clearly fake names in the first place, although fear and desperation can severely cloud thought processes.


----------



## JAB_Charity (18 April 2009)

nathanblack said:


> The JAB link seems to explain it.
> 
> See this ATO Link for more details.
> http://ato.gov.au/nonprofit/content.asp?doc=/content/61197.htm&page=1#P181_10545
> ...





Thanks Nathanblack -- yes that is correct.


The ATO info is a bit confusing [I will write to them to suggest that the ATO make this info clearer as I have done on a number of times in the past on other issues]...


..yes -- it's a bit confusing when ATO says that it is a condition of the tax deduction that "the shares were acquired at least 12 months before they were gifted"...

...ATO is referring then to a valuation based on the on-market (or last traded price) of the shares at the time of the transfer.  This applies to shares held great than 12 months.


Where the shares have been held for less than 12 months -- [and to be clear these shares can be gifted to a charity] -- then the valuation of the income tax deductible donation is as follows per ATO website:



> If the donor acquired the shares during the 12 months before making the gift, the amount of the gift deduction is the lesser of the market value of the shares on the day the gift was made, and the amount paid for the shares.





* Of course: As with all financial and legal matters investors should obtain their own independent professional advice *


Hope this make things clearer.


David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://barrow.org.au/


----------



## JAB_Charity (18 April 2009)

*Macquarie buys out its private BrisConnections investors*

Macquarie buys out its private BrisConnections investors

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...Connections-inv-pd20090418-R7MR7?OpenDocument

The Spectators 3:14 AM, 18 Apr 2009 [quoted in full -- in public interest]

Macquarie Group Ltd is quietly bailing out its private clients who hold BrisConnections stock to relieve them of their liabilities, The Weekend AFR reports. 

According to the newspaper, the investment bank is understood to be buying out its clients of the stock it once promoted, but now privately acknowledges to be toxic. 

Chief executive Nicholas Moore is believed to be personally involved in efforts to rescue anxious retail investors. 

Meanwhile, rebel shareholder Nicholas Bolton has spoken out against critics that accused him of abandoning other distressed investors in the beleaguered tollroad project. 

A wind-up motion brought against BrisConnections by Mr Bolton was defeated after he sold his votes to Leighton Holdings for $4.5 million. 

"To the extent there was an altruistic outcome it was unintended, in that my interests were aligned with the interests of all other unit holders," Mr Bolton told Fairfax. 

"But there was always a commercial intention on our part. We didn't seek the tag of white knight, and it doesn't fit." 

Mr Bolton and BrisConnections chairman Trevor Rowe have traded barbs, both accusing each other of proposing monetary offers. 

The fiasco has drawn the attention of the market operator and corporate regulator. 

According to The Australian, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission has reached a preliminary position that BrisConnections and Leighton Holdings Ltd had complied with continuous disclosure obligations.


----------



## sails (18 April 2009)

*Re: Macquarie buys out its private BrisConnections investors*



JAB_Charity said:


> Macquarie buys out its private BrisConnections investors
> 
> http://www.businessspectator.com.au...Connections-inv-pd20090418-R7MR7?OpenDocument
> 
> The Spectators 3:14 AM, 18 Apr 2009 [quoted in full -- in public interest]




It begs the question why they didn't do this months ago instead of leaving mum and dad unit holders terrified for so long.  But perhaps its more to do with the pressure of unit holders transferring to the three Bs?


----------



## nathanblack (18 April 2009)

*Re: Macquarie buys out its private BrisConnections investors*



sails said:


> It begs the question why they didn't do this months ago instead of leaving mum and dad unit holders terrified for so long.  But perhaps its more to do with the pressure of unit holders transferring to the three Bs?




i doubt unit holders transferring to the three Bs is creating pressure. MAQ would want as many units as possible to find there hands into people that intend to pay the installments. After all they are underwritters and will make up any shortfall.

doing it earlier would have prevented bolton having such a strong hand. by the end of this saga there will be a few holders controling 90% of the project.

i dont think they did this because of pressure. they probably just realise its there obilgation. they are finally doing the right thing. maybe pressure of bad publicity but atleast there doing it.


----------



## JAB_Charity (18 April 2009)

*Macquarie bails its clients out of BrisCon*

Macquarie bails its clients out of BrisCon

Saturday, 18 April 2009 -- The Australian Financial Review -- Jacqueline Maley

[quoted in full -- in public interest; check against original]


Macquarie Group is quietly buying out the BrisConnections stock held by its private clients to relieve them of the liabilities due on securities the investment bank once promoted but which it now privately acknowledges to be toxic.

The Weekend AFR understands that, when the BrisConnections register closes next Wednesday ahead of the $1-per-unit call on the now worthless stock, Macquarie will have taken out its private wealth management clients via a series of private transfers.

BrisConnections units are listed at .01c, the lowest price possible on the Australian Stock Exchange. They have not traded on market since Macquarie bought 31.4 million units on market on March 31 - an 8 per cent share that would have blocked the wind-up vote proposed by BrisConnections' renegade major investor, Nicholas Bolton.

In the end the vote, held on Tuesday, was in no danger of passing because Mr Bolton sold his proxy votes for $4.5 million.

Macquarie's latest acquisition will add another 2 to 2.5 per cent to its existing share of BrisConnections, taking its holding to about 10 per cent and lifting its exposure by tens of millions.

The buy-up amounts to a tacit admission that the $4.9 billion BrisConnections project, which Macquarie put together, sponsored and underwrote, has been an abject failure.

It is believed Macquarie chief Nicholas Moore is under great pressure to resolve the fiasco and has become personally involved in moves to rescue distressed retail investors unlikely to meet the calls on their units.

Some sources claim Macquarie brokers were pressured into pushing BrisConnections scrip on to its private clients. The bank, being an underwriter to the project, reportedly was keen to avoid a shortfall in the original float. Last year a Macquarie spokesman said several funds managed by Macquarie independently decided to take positions in the July 2008 float.

Macquarie faces mounting exposure on the troubled project. In a related development, it is believed the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) will scrutinise the legality of the deal struck between BrisConnections' builders Leighton Holdings and Mr Bolton ahead of Tuesday's shareholder meeting. Mr Bolton owned his stock through Australian Style Investments, but Leighton paid the $4.5 million into another of his companies, Australian Style Holdings.

It is possible Mr Bolton breached his director's duties in making this arrangement. This in turn raises concerns that Leighton may have been complicit in a breach of the Corporations Law. Meanwhile ASIC warned investors it was illegal to transfer shares to fictitious persons, a ploy it is believed some BrisConnections investors might have been considering to avoid paying next week's call.


----------



## sails (18 April 2009)

*Re: Macquarie bails its clients out of BrisCon*



JAB_Charity said:


> Macquarie bails its clients out of BrisCon
> 
> Macquarie Group is quietly buying out the BrisConnections stock held by its private clients to relieve them of the liabilities due on securities the investment bank once promoted but which it now privately acknowledges to be toxic.
> 
> The Weekend AFR understands that, when the BrisConnections register closes next Wednesday ahead of the $1-per-unit call on the now worthless stock, Macquarie will have taken out its private wealth management clients via a series of private transfers.




and 



> Macquarie's latest acquisition will add another 2 to 2.5 per cent to its existing share of BrisConnections, taking its holding to about 10 per cent and lifting its exposure by tens of millions.




That article gives a bit more info and looks like they are only buying out their private clients - possibly original IPO purchasers?


----------



## sails (18 April 2009)

ASIC warns against share transfers amid BrisConn rumours - hopefully no-one has actually done this as the penalties are pretty steep - couple of excerpts from the article:



> "In light of speculation that transfers of particular securities involving false names have been used in the attempt to avoid liabilities, ASIC considers that fictitious transactions are not legally valid and do not transfer obligations," ASIC said in a statement.
> 
> It might also lead investors open for civil action, ASIC said.







> The maximum penalty for an individual who contravenes the act is a $22,000 fine or imprisonment for five years or both. A body corporate may be fined up to $110,000.


----------



## poguemahone (18 April 2009)

Hi All

For those using Twitter you can follow twitter/brisconnections (aggregator of latest news in relation to this saga not Brisconnections themselves it looks - funny "This is BCSCA-Sparta Avatar though) and twitter Nicholas_bolton for some interesting one liners..

Have been glued to this since last year on this forum!! I don't need a book anymore, I just read this nightly for my Non Fiction Fix! 

cheers Pog


----------



## jackson8 (18 April 2009)

poguemahone said:


> Hi All
> 
> For those using Twitter you can follow twitter/brisconnections (aggregator of latest news in relation to this saga not Brisconnections themselves it looks - funny "This is BCSCA-Sparta Avatar though) and twitter Nicholas_bolton for some interesting one liners..
> 
> ...





hi 
could you provide a link or the name to look up for the twitter page
with thanks


----------



## jim Byrnes (18 April 2009)

In order to maintain a fully informed, efficient and transparent market there must be no information asymmetries. The Insider Trader provisions and the continuous disclosure provisions are designed so that both buyers and sellers in a market have the same information. The factual scenario is in my view conduct which is both intentionally and unintentionally likely to mislead and deceive the reasonable person and has inhabited the market for BrisConnect from being fully informed efficient and transparent. This is due to the perception and reality in the market place. 

1.	Up until approximately early March both Macquarie Bank and BrisConnections Management Limited (BMCL) have attempted to prevent Australian Style Investments Pty Ltd (ASI) from holding the meeting and making the various requisitions. After many court battles this has not occurred and the meeting has gone ahead. The PUBLIC and MARKET perception, reasonably held, during all this time was that ASI would be voting in favour of the proposed resolutions. This is obviously stated in various documents put forward by ASI in relation to the meeting eg. The precedent proxy form contained in their Notice of Meeting for the meeting in Melbourne (which did not occur). Therefore, every person was entitled to believe that ASI would be voting in favour of the various resolutions. 
2.	On Wednesday 8th April the Deed was signed with Australian Style Investments Pty Ltd (ASI).
3.	On Thursday 9th April according to undertakings provided to ASIC to alleviate concerns in relation to the meeting scheduled for the 14th April 2009 BrisConnections Management Limited (BMCL) released two further documents one being a response to certain comments ASI had made and the second being further financial information to shareholders.
4.	At 2.23pm on Saturday 11th April 2009 ASI lodges proxy voting against the resolutions.  This is the first time BMCL states that knew of the switch by ASI. At that point the market was misinformed, and every single untiholders who lodged a proxy or attended and voted at the meeting from 2.23pm on Saturday until 10am on Sunday morning (proxy deadline) and all those unit holders who attended and voted in person or via corporate representative have been mislead by the fact that the public and market perception was not corrected by BMCL which had an obligation to do so.
5.	The general rule in relation to Meetings and EGM’s is that the company must disclose to shareholders all information material to a shareholders decision as to whether or not to vote in favour of the particular resolution. After months of very public court battles the fact that the major shareholders (who was the requisitioned) will be voting against its own resolutions is material to a unit holders decision, it is also information which is material to the price of the securities as it, by itself and had the power of changing the outcome of the meeting….Therefore, in my view BMCL was under a positive obligation to correct a misinformed and inefficient market from the period Saturday 2.23pm (if that actually was the first time they knew about it) until when the meeting occurred.
6.	Explore for one moment if someone had purchased stock (off market as on-market was suspended) during that period and he/she knew of ASI’s change, in my view that purchaser would have committed an insider trading offence. The corollary of that is that the information needed to be released and wasn’t which has placed the company in breach.
7.	Often in ASX listed companies releases are put out to maintain an orderly and transparent market. Examples of this are abundant and are often entitled, “Clarification to media reports” or “Clarification on speculation” or “Comments on rumors in the market”. Releases are routinely put out to clarify market information in relation to potential mergers and acquisitions. This is because ASX listed companies have a positive obligation to help maintain this market and no announcement by BMCL caused a breach.
8.	BMCL are hopelessly conflicted because of their previously stated recommendation not to vote in favour of the resolutions it was therefore in their best interests to suppress the information from the market. 
9.	there are three actions available to BTRL 1) against ASI and Bolton under 52 of the trade practices act and further based on breaches as a director of 180-184 of the Corporations law there are grounds to seek the appointment of a provisional liquidator to ASI and a preservation order on the funds paid out to a third party . Further as it is highly likely that Bolton has engineered a transfer for an improper purpose the transfer would be likely to be reversed. 2) Class action would be in 2 classes, original unit holders 390,000,000 and current unit holders around 80,000,000 plus lost opportunity and punitive damages. this action would be against BSC and its owners Mirvac and Leighton’s and Macquarie Bank this may also include Deutsche bank but it will be necessary to provide proof that they where negligent . It is likely that there law firms would also be defendants  at least in regards to the IPO .3) the most pressing issue is to nullify the results of the meeting and either seek that the meeting be re held or that the court find that the RE is unreliable and conflicted and should be removed.
10.	Australian Litigation Funders have pledged to fund the matter and have now engaged a sizeable number of lawyers and barristers in 2 states. 

Brisbane Toll road is still buying units of market and all unit enquries should be directed to j.byrnes@alfpl.com   all comsec , e trade transfers can be finalized same day , others may take till Tuesday .




James W Byrnes & Associates 

j.byrnes@alfpl.com


----------



## drsmith (18 April 2009)

*Re: Macquarie buys out its private BrisConnections investors*



sails said:


> It begs the question why they didn't do this months ago instead of leaving mum and dad unit holders terrified for so long.  But perhaps its more to do with the pressure of unit holders transferring to the three Bs?



What Macquarie needed to do was ensure that 50%+ was maintained in friendly hands as the institutions bailed out. This may have required supporting the stock by increasing it's own holding. Instead it bailed out and has since dived back in for fear of disaster. 

If the AFR's report about Macquarie quietly buying out it's private clients is true then the crack in the dam wall just widened a little. It would be interesting to know what the buy out price is.


----------



## drsmith (18 April 2009)

Jim,

I note that on the day after the unitholder's meeting there was over 30 million units for sale at $0.001. As such 20 milliion could have been purchased for $20,000. While this cost is obviously higher than the $10 per million you are offering, I just wonder (after taking into account the time, effort and any costs associated with off market transfers) whether it would have been more practical to have purchased them on the ASX for $0.001 before trading ceased. That too would have eliminated any risk of not reaching your target by the deadline on transfers on Tuesday.


----------



## jim Byrnes (19 April 2009)

it would require me to go back and increase the payment to the 50mil already purchased


----------



## JAB_Charity (19 April 2009)

With respect Thread Managers and we believe in the public interest, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust would appreciate making the following information known:


PROCESSING DELAYS​
*Please NOTE:* As at 17 April 2009 we have experienced responses from the Link Market Services (“Link”) share registry [BrisConnections BCSCA] and some CHESS-Sponsored-Brokers that put at risk the practical ability for us in good faith to be confident that the off-market transfer form will be processed by Link in such timely and effective manner to meet the 22 April 2009 Last Day for accepting BCSCA transfers without call money attached (such date having been announced to the market by BrisConnections on 2 March 2009).

Further:

*(1)*  We are experiencing effective transfers for issue-sponsored to issue-sponsored transfers at the Link share registry (i.e. where there is no CHESS-Sponsored-Broker involved with the Seller of the BCSCA units).  There is no guarantee that this will continue.

*(2)*  We are experiencing some effective transfers for Seller CHESS-Sponsored-Broker to issue-sponsored transfers where the Broker is a full-service broker and working closely with their client to effect the valid transfer within time.  There is no guarantee that this will continue.

*(3)*  We are experiencing systemic failure to achieve the mutually-desired outcome of timely transfers where the Seller CHESS-Sponsored-Broker is a discount / on-line broker such as CommSec and E*Trade.

*(4)*  Please note that the BrisConnections off-market share transfer form is now, and has always been, an invitation to treat not an offer to the world.

*(5)*  We recommend that prospective Sellers consider our invitation to treat within the context of other declared current Buyers for BCSCA units – especially where the Seller’s circumstances are such that the Seller’s CHESS-Sponsored-Broker for their BCSCA holdings is a discount / on-line broker such as CommSec and E*Trade.


David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://barrow.org.au/


----------



## jim Byrnes (19 April 2009)

Ok so no body says, “Why didn’t you tell us” 

Time is running out to transfer units to a willing buyer at fair consideration. Effective date for last day to transfer units is this Wednesday.
Please don’t think you can call me Tuesday night and sell your units and get a transfer done Wednesday...Unless its really worth our while we will pass .

If someone has a big line of stock we may...repeat may bend over backwards to assist.
If they hold an amount under say 2 million, in my view there stuck with them from Tuesday night.

Provided someone offers us enough cash …we would not get involved.

And I don’t mean 1000, as trying to get a transfer done on Wednesday; the last day will be problematic.

In our view because of the silly transfer attempts this stock is subject to extreme scrutiny now.

Luckily with a 50 mil plus holding we have the direct contact details of most of the senior back office staff and are able to when required effect speedy transfers.

So to be clear if you’re hanging in there with a hope and a prayer that a deal will surface by Tuesday, don’t waste your time. As any deal they may be trying to put to unit holders will be scuttled by our legal action mid to late next week.

If asked to effect transfers come Wednesday , I would want the seller to cover all of our time and opportunity cost which are likely to be substantial …to put it bluntly we will be set , and really busy and will only divert a staff member and lawyer unless somebody makes it very tempting .

We have been offered 10k and more by sellers. So don’t be lured in to a false sense of security thinking that they will buy on Tuesday night and get the transfer done Wednesday … not likely 

Today I am processing many million in transfers with the director.
I shall be trying to get him to swing by in the morning …50/50 so I can execute any new transfers.

For sales/ purchases entered into from now we say 
0 to -500,000 unit’s standard offer of .00001c to buy your units and a $1,000 processing fee 
500,000 and over same offer no fee.
From tomorrow onwards 
All sales will attract a processing fee and dependant on when the sale is effected 1000 is for all transactions 
From Tuesday 
The fee will increase.

Note every time we effect transfers and our holding increases we are required to notify the company, notify the exchange, complete various standard notices...Its all time and money.



So here the deal. Send me an email 

Confirm name of seller 

Amount of stock 

Address 

Phone numbers 

Who you deal with, Comsec, etrade etc same day you get an offer 

Terms of how that offer is made 

A transfer 



You complete, scan and email back 



If there is a fee payable we will notify you at the time of making the offer 

Do not delay …Warning do not delay...this is an announcement so that all unit holders are aware   


James W Byrnes 



j.byrnes@alfpl.com 


James W Byrnes

j.byrnes@alfpl.com


----------



## jim Byrnes (19 April 2009)

So as to clarify to points .
billy silly transfers i mean H B Bear and Bud  Gerygar , ivor Biggin 

and second yes we will always talk to people about transfers no matter how late . 
David Barrow has really gone out of his way to help people who may have otherwise been caught in the stock .
David and i have spoken and we have agreed to pick up his comsec and e trade clients so as to effect transfers on monday


----------



## JAB_Charity (19 April 2009)

Businss Specatator

*"BrisConn will pursue investor payments"*

Published 11:24 AM, 19 Apr 2009 Last update 10:39 AM,  19 Apr 2009

See Link




> "... we have a contractual obligation under the underwriting agreements (with Macquarie Bank and Deutsche Bank) ... that we as BrisConnections must use our best endeavours to collect these funds from those instalment holders that don't pay their instalment," Mr Rowe told ABC Television's _Inside Business_.





David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://barrow.org.au/


----------



## MeToo (19 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> Ok so no body says, “Why didn’t you tell us”
> 
> Time is running out to transfer units to a willing buyer at fair consideration. Effective date for last day to transfer units is this Wednesday.
> Please don’t think you can call me Tuesday night and sell your units and get a transfer done Wednesday...Unless its really worth our while we will pass .
> ...




Jim
We, especially I thank you for your time and effort in this saga.  

I am a holder with 28,000 units, and it seem the unit has still not transferred out of my account.  I am with E*trade, I emailed documents to you and RD at Whittens on 1st April with original to BTRL, then try to follow up with email on 9th, 15th and 17th April.  I am trying to find out what the delay is.  It's been over two weeks, and my unit has not transferred out.  

I do understand transferring larger lots is more important, but the uncertainly doesn't help, especially when I have no idea why my unit have not transferred out yet.

Like I said earlier, a $1000 donation to the ALF is fair, if BTRL helps with the certainty of me not been liable for $28,000.


----------



## jim Byrnes (19 April 2009)

As a result of a number of small issues i have had with transfers , i attach the email i now send to sellers .

i also attach a copy of the offer and the transfer .

anybody who has returned there acceptance and transfer and who still has there stock showing , means that there has been a problem .

we have concluded over 50mil in transfers . the only problem is where a Hin number is wrong or there is a mistake by the seller .  





Dear Unit Holder 


If you wish to take up the offer.
You need to understand this 
We don’t want to profit from your misfortune.

Large transfers are being processed as per the attached offer 
Purchases/Transfers under 500,000 are not currently sought.
I will however ensure they are processed provided a small fee is paid which will meet our reasonable expenses.
To process an offer from start to finish and obtain registration has been cost including my time cost around 1000.
We therefore seek 1000 contribution to the cost.
Please pay this to Australian Litigation Funders account below.
Please EFT and send receipt with scanned executed documents above 
Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd 
CBA 

BSB 062 156 
Acc 1018 1935  
Please note, we can process all comsec/ E trade  transactions on Monday and have them transferred and the debt removed from your name Monday.
We will not process the transfer until we receive a conformation of EFT into the above account 
Please complete 
transfer enclosed 
Complete all paperwork 
Scan and return by email so we can get started 
Post original to below by express 
Please check what you complete and send, if you don’t put a hin or srn number on the transfer it will not go through.
We suggest you send us a copy of your holding statement so we can attach a copy to the transfer. Sometimes the information, like the spelling of your name is wrong when transfer is entered originally …so please help us help you.

No matter if your 10,000 or 10, mil if I have to chase you to much it wastes time and you risk not getting your stock transferred.

So check your work as I will upon receipt  

If you have several million and I have to get it fixed more than twice or keep chasing you we will impose a transaction fee 


.
Please scan and return all documents 
Please post all original to 

Check that you have correctly executed the documents 
Provide contact details 
We check what you send back 
We contact you if there is a mistake 
We don’t chase people if the documents are incorrectly filed out.

I have wasted hours on some people because they either don’t put the SRN or HIN number down, or they accept and forget to send the transfer.
I will try twice 
Once by email and once by phone if there is a problem, if people don’t respond well I guess we have done our part and cant be blamed if the stock does not get transferred.
Please note this in a generic email and not directed specifically at any individual  
CHARLTONS CJC PTY LTD
Chartered Accountant 
Suite 901, Level 9 
130 Elizabeth Street 
Sydney NSW 2000 AUSTRALIA 

James W Byrnes & Associates 
j.byrnes@alfpl.com


----------



## MeToo (19 April 2009)

Okay, I only just received the transfer form via email just then, obviously Australia post or someone forget to post the transfer to me.

Just to safe I have decide to make a $1000 contribution to ALF to cover all bases.  Unfortunately no plan B (donate to David Burrow).  

So will have to see whether I am still on the register Tuesday.


----------



## drsmith (19 April 2009)

MeToo said:


> I am a holder with 28,000 units, and it seem the unit has still not transferred out of my account.  I am with E*trade, I emailed documents to you and RD at Whittens on 1st April with original to BTRL, then try to follow up with email on 9th, 15th and 17th April.  I am trying to find out what the delay is.  It's been over two weeks, and my unit has not transferred out.






MeToo said:


> Okay, I only just received the transfer form via email just then, obviously Australia post or someone forget to post the transfer to me.



I assume from the above that you emailed documents detailing your shareholding on 1st April and what you have just received by email is the transfer form for you to sign.

That being the case perhaps Jim may possibly be able to offer an explanation for the above delay and to what extent other sellers have had to wait to this point before either recieving transfer forms to sign or confirmation of the transfer.


----------



## jim Byrnes (19 April 2009)

There is an offer document and A transfer we send out to those who recieved offers .
where the offer was made by email we attach a transfer and ask for both to be executed .

when we get an offer and no transfer or we send a transfer and we dont get a reply or when we get a transfer with no Hin we cannot transfer .

i confirm we have many many hour spent fixing this .

i dont want to seem hard but many people cant follow instructions .
i have a pile of transfers with no hins or wrong details .
its a big job tracking down the seller and getting it right .
i dont know who or why but there are issues .

anyway we are effecting over a dozen transfers so far tomorrow


----------



## drsmith (20 April 2009)

The following article from Crikey is an interesting read.

http://www.crikey.com.au/Business/2...th-class-action-and-Federal-Court-orders.html


----------



## JAB_Charity (20 April 2009)

BrisConnections Federal Court Battle with JAB-Charity


o The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust has originated *legal proceedings* in the *Federal Court* (VID251/2009) against *BrisConnections*

o *Interlocutory Hearing* before Gordon J set down for *9:30am Tue 21 April 2009* in Melbourne

o Application is for an order of *equitable injunction *that BrisConnections extend Last day for accepting off-market transfers of partly paid stapled securities (ASX Code: *BCSCA*) without call money attached [currently *Last transfers 22 April 2009 *cut-off]

------------------------------

It would not of course be appropriate for us to discuss a matter currently before the Fed Court.

However, there is a paragraph of our publicly available Statement of Claim that may interest forum users and unitholders:



> 23A ...there are many BCSCA unitholders who are distressed and desperately seeking opportunities to transfer their units to willing transferees/buyers before the Second Instalment date of 29 April 2009 requires actual payment of the next $1.00 instalment and before the Last Day Transfer (currently 22 April 2009), after which time, units cannot be transferred without first paying the $1.00 call on the BCSCA units.  To address and relieve the distress of BCSCA unitholders is a matter of public interest.





We are interested in any unitholder (current or former) views on the current situation of the Last Day Transfer (currently 22 April 2009) and the Second Instalment date of 29 April 2009 Liability.

If you would like to make a short statement (that would be appropriate for a Federal Court Judge to review), please send me a private message or email via this forum.

Or alternatively send an email to:

David@Barrow.ORG.AU


Please note that we will not use posts that only exist on this public forum, so if you would like to contribute your comments please do so by one of the private ways above -- and then post to the forum if you would like to share this publicly under your aviator.

Also, given the scope and nature of the case we will only be able to seek leave from Justice Gordon to put forward comments from current and former unitholders -- and so you should also state your name accordingly for indentification.


David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://barrow.org.au/


----------



## drsmith (20 April 2009)

JAB_Charity said:


> o The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust has originated *legal proceedings* in the *Federal Court* (VID251/2009) against *BrisConnections*




Your court action was noted in the Crikey article above.



> In other BrisConnections news, minority BrisConnections unit-holder, the Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust (which owns 0.5 percent of BrisConnections units but is awaiting transfer of just under 5 percent of units) has launched Federal Court action to order BrisConnections extend the last day for accepting off-market transfers of stapled securities.
> 
> The Trust is endeavoring to increase its stake in BrisConnections on the basis the “the $1 calls can potentially be met by a market re-evaluation of unit fundamentals (driven by the unique, scarce, highly valuable asset: the long-term 45 year toll road concession), the charity's cash position and capacity to raise further donations before the 29 April final call.”
> 
> ...




Best of luck.


----------



## jim Byrnes (20 April 2009)

Dear Unit holders 

As a matter of record and so I don’t have to answer calls at midnight again.
Today I and Renzie personally hand delivered 17 transfers.
Most with comsec who will process overnight 
And several with E trade who will have of in the morning 
We have made special arrangements with E Trade and Comsec re Transfers.
This is what happens.
I send an offer on behalf of BTRL 
I send a transfer on behalf of BTRL 
Seller executes, scans and returns 

I ask for a copy of the sellers’ chess statement, this allows me to attach to transfer so as to make transfer easier and reduces rejections.
Whilst in the past we have limited request for payment only to smaller parcels, we now require a payment equal to what we believe our reasonable cost would be.
This depends also on who you’re with.
We invite sellers to contact us on an urgent basis informing me of the following.
Name of seller 
Phone number of seller 
Address of seller 
Chess sponsor (Comsec, e trade or other) 
Number of units owned.
If they are a buyer from the IPO 
If they bough when the units where first listed 
What they paid initially 
Do they want to be included in the class action?


What a few people don’t get.
It is unlikely there will be any offer to unit holders from Mac Bank or others.
At best they could hope to get a waiver of the obligation to meet the call.
They can sell there units and be a party to a class action.
There losses are crystallized and they have an each way bet. 
If you have 10 million now that does not mean your going to get 1c more than the guy who had 10m and sold them yesterday , the loss is already there , the false misleading and deceptive statements in the PDS have never been corrected .
Anyway BTRL will consider accepting transfers,   
James W Byrnes & Associates 
j.byrnes@alfpl.com


----------



## jim Byrnes (20 April 2009)

Dear Unit holders 



I am looking for an original IPO purchaser.



Preferably with 2000 to 5000 units only 



The person most preferable is someone who believed what they said in the PDS 

They believed that they would get a good return based on the PDS 



They may have been encouraged to buy by Macquarie bank advisors (That’s a bonus) 



They have little in the way of assets.



That person is the perfect person to be the plaintiff in the class action.



The funder will meet all there cost and expenses 



If you fit the bill, please contact j.byrnes@alfpl.com


----------



## MeToo (21 April 2009)

Just got of phone with E*trade rep, as of 5.00pm, there were no notes to my account to highlight that there is transfer request for my BCSCA shares.  

Looks like I am still the registered owner for tonight.


----------



## JAB_Charity (21 April 2009)

*Special Processing - Last Day Transfers (22 April)*

Dear All,

We have finally put in place processing arrangements where we are receiving donations of BCSCA units via:

(1) CommSec to CommSec account; OR

(2) From your Link sponsor-registered 


** No other Brokers -- e.g E*Trade can now be handled **


This Last Day Transfers (22 April) special processing will be available at the following times Only:


(A) Transfer Forms collected BY 11AM (drop-dead-line) WED 22 April from the serviced office of The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust:

  63/85 Grattan Street, Melbourne VIC 3053

(B) Transfer Forms collected BY 4PM in CBD Sydney [collection points to be confirmed].


This is an invitation to treat -- not an offer.

The Forms will not be checked for accuracy with respect to the Seller's details -- so as always you lodge at your own risk.  No guarantees on valid lodgment.


We charge NO handling or admin fee.  Management have no direct benefit or fees payment from the Charitable Trust.


If interested -- please email:

David@Barrow.ORG.AU


David C. Barrow, Trustee, 



http://barrow.org.au/


----------



## drsmith (21 April 2009)

*Re: Special Processing - Last Day Transfers (22 April)*

David,

How did the interlocutory hearing go in relation to getting the transfer deadline delayed ?


----------



## JAB_Charity (21 April 2009)

*Re: Special Processing - Last Day Transfers (22 April)*



drsmith said:


> How did the interlocutory hearing go in relation to getting the transfer deadline delayed ?




No extension.  Will update later.


David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://barrow.org.au/


----------



## Judd (21 April 2009)

So.  Provided you hold 50,000 units or less on 14/4/2009, Macquarie is prepared to take them off your hand at zero cost and pay the $1 installments.  If installment has already been paid Macquarie will refund you.

See ASX announcement.


----------



## drsmith (21 April 2009)

In terms of units that would not cover much. 

Still, MeToo and others with holdings up to 50000 units can now rest easy. It's also another crack in the dam.


----------



## MeToo (21 April 2009)

I won't believe it till I actually get the offer documents and it gets widely reported in the press.


----------



## drsmith (21 April 2009)

MeToo said:


> I won't believe it till I actually get the offer documents and it gets widely reported in the press.



You can believe it. It's an official announcement from both Brisconnections and Macquarie. 

This I suggest is designed to get the original subscribers off the hook as they would have been prinicipally smaller unitholders. This is perhaps what Jim Byrnes was referring to last week.

It's interesting that that larger unitholders are excluded to the extent that they cannot contribute any of their shares. Jim might have his legal team working late tonight.


----------



## freddy2 (21 April 2009)

Assuming a minimum tradable parcel of $500 (?) this means anyone who bought for less than 1c (eg ignorant retail investors) will miss out on the Mac Bank deal.


----------



## drsmith (21 April 2009)

freddy2 said:


> Assuming a minimum tradable parcel of $500 (?) this means anyone who bought for less than 1c (eg ignorant retail investors) will miss out on the Mac Bank deal.



True but that could be the next crack in the dam.

After that it will then be down to the underwriters reaching an agreement with the larger unitholders or slugging it out in court.


----------



## jim Byrnes (21 April 2009)

Brisbane Toll Road link (BTRL) v BrisConnections update.

Today BTRL and there lawyers   finished briefs of evidence to counsel.
Today BTRL and Lawyers delivered to separate teams of barristers Draft statements of claim for settling (that means they put it in the best legal terms)  
Tomorrow three lawyers and The in house corporate representative of BTRL will be with 2 JNR counsel and 2 QCs finalizing claims and preparing the final version of the affidavits. 
This Week there will be two applications filed in two different jurisdictions.
Supreme Court.
1)	An application to wind up BCML.
2)	a declaration  There has been a breach of continuous disclosure and in particular Listing Rule 3.1
3)	A declaration That BMCL has engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct or conduct which is likely to mislead and deceive as it has not made public the information which Brisbane Toll Road Link has relied upon to its detriment. 
4)	That the call be subject to injunctive relief.
5)	Costs 
6)	Damages 

Federal court 
A Class action is now almost ready to be filed which will include ALL UNITS HOLDERS.
We have identified statements contained in the PDS which are without question false and misleading. There is no defense to several of the points raised in the claim as we have UN refutable proof that the some of information supplied in the PDS is wrong, false, and untruthful. Not to mention false and misleading.
The class action will include all current unit holders , all previous unit holders , the class action will also seek additional damages equal to the next two instalments that the Brisbane supreme court ruled on  Macquarie’s application that in the event of a winding up the instalments are still payable , this means as a result of Macquarie , the financial advisor to BCML having a very active role in the PDS , that Macquarie will be a second defendant for a claim within a range now deemed to be between $1.3 Billion and $1.8 billon dollars .
No unit holder should consider any claim from Macquarie until clearly understanding there options. The sale of your units does not automatically remove your claim in a class action. There will be a specific class of claimants who are past unit holders.
Macquarie will no doubt seek to get unit holders who agree to sell to them to give up there rights.
Original unit holders are also likely to be in a separate class and may be entitled to receive 100% return of there money less funders cost and legal’s   
James W Byrnes & Associates 
j.byrnes@alfpl.com


----------



## Prospector (21 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> There is no defense to several of the points raised in the claim as we have UN refutable proof that the some of information supplied in the PDS is wrong, false, and untruthful. Not to mention false and misleading.




Now that is an interesting development.  No doubt the lawyers are being well paid for all these actions.


----------



## jim Byrnes (21 April 2009)

A little bit of relief in sight .Macquarie bank has agreed to make some form of conditional offer to the small unit holders.

BEWARE. THE SMALL UNIT HOLDERS ARE LIKELY TO HAVE THE LARGEST CLAIMS AGAINST BCML AND MACQUARRIE.

SO IF YOU PAID 30C OR 50C OR $1-00 , THE CLASS ACTION WOULD LIKELY SEE A RETURN IN TIME OF 66% OF YOUR INVESTMENT PLUS INTEREST .

WHAT DO MAC WANT
THEY WANT TO MOP UP THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE REAL AND PROPER CLAIMS.

THE CLASS ACTION WILL HOWEVER AUTOMATICALLY CATCH EVERY PERSON AND WILL REQUIRE AN APPLIACTION TO THE COURT TO BE RELEASED IN THE SHORT TERM 

THIS WILL SCUTTLE THE OFFER


----------



## jim Byrnes (21 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> Now that is an interesting development.  No doubt the lawyers are being well paid for all these actions.




LET ME ASK YOU .
DO YOU THINK WE WOULD HAVE ARRANGED FOR A FUNDER TO COMMIT $1 MILLION IN FUNDING IF THEY DID NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS A GOOD CASE .

ONCE DISCOVERY GETS UNDERWAY , REALLY TREVOR SHOULD CONSIDER A 26 WEEK CRUISE .

HE KNEW WHAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED WITH MAC BANK .
HE KNEW DAM WELL WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH LEIGHTONS .

I HAVE WORKED OUT HOW TO TELL WHEN THE BOARD ARE TELLING LIES ...
THERE LIPS ARE MOVING ....


----------



## Prospector (21 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> LET ME ASK YOU .
> DO YOU THINK WE WOULD HAVE ARRANGED FOR A FUNDER TO COMMIT $1 MILLION IN FUNDING IF THEY DID NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS A GOOD CASE ...




I am sure you feel there is a good case; it is problematic for the entire project if a PDS has errors, even more significant if those errors are the result of deceit or negligence or omission.  Its just a shame that in all of this, the only people who stand to win, without having experienced any of the personal angst of mum and dad investors, is the legal profession.


----------



## brty (21 April 2009)

Jim, 
You really are comic relief in all this to those of us that are bystanders. Plus you are a fly in the ointment to the establishment here.

I thought this was a lawyerfest a few weeks ago but had no idea how complicated it would all get with the shennanegans of the last week or 2.

I can't help but notice how Bolton has control of 19.9%, you have up to a similar amount say ~17%? and JAB ~7%?. All it would take is a few discussions with another party with ~7%? to really make things interesting at the boardroom level. 
I cannot help but notice how you are not bagging Bolton anymore, perhaps some discussions are already underway.

All I really know is that Macquarie should get their bums kicked for even allowing the possibility to eventuate. If they had only bought all stock available at .1 cents up to 19.9% they would have been much safer, rather than only 8%. Hence the mad scramble at the last minute.

brty


----------



## jim Byrnes (21 April 2009)

brty said:


> Jim,
> You really are comic relief in all this to those of us that are bystanders. Plus you are a fly in the ointment to the establishment here.
> 
> I thought this was a lawyerfest a few weeks ago but had no idea how complicated it would all get with the shennanegans of the last week or 2.
> ...




BOLTON TRANSFERED HIS INTEREST TODAY .
HE IS FAR FROM OF THE HOOK .
BUT I AM GOING AFTER THE DEEP POCKETS FIRST .
HE IS FAR FROM OF MY RADAR . TRUST ME HIS TIME WILL COME SOON ENOUGH .
HAS ANYONE GOT WILLIAMS CONTACT DETAILS 
I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE LAST LAUGH ..BUT AS I HAVE STATED .
BCML AND MAC BANK FIRST , BOLTON WELL LET ME JUST SAY NICK YOUR NOT FORGIVEN 
MR WILLIAMS , YOUR BEING SPECIFICALLY EXCUDED OUT OF THE CLASS ACTION . AS I WANT TO SEE YOU BANKRUPT SO I GET A TRUSTEE TO GO AFTER ASI/BOLTON .


----------



## jim Byrnes (21 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> I am sure you feel there is a good case; it is problematic for the entire project if a PDS has errors, even more significant if those errors are the result of deceit or negligence or omission.  Its just a shame that in all of this, the only people who stand to win, without having experienced any of the personal angst of mum and dad investors, is the legal profession.






Here is one point we believe is unable to be 100% proved correct.
The PDS 

In Big letters says Brisbane is the fastest growing capital city in Australia …suffering from critical transport and capacity constraints   (page 7)

Thereafter they say forecast population growth 2004 2031 
Brisbane is the fastest growing capital city in Australia 
Source Bureau of statistics.

Ok all you wiz kids 

I will give $250-00 to the first person to email me a copy of any public documents from the bureau stating Brisbane is in 2008 the time of making the statement , April may to be more correctly put ..Brisbane is the fastest growing capital city in Australia 
James W Byrnes & Associates 

j.byrnes@alfpl.com


----------



## brty (22 April 2009)

Jim,
Keep the $250 for the lawyers....

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@...0A92BD4DEF2E5026CA25711D00161A77?OpenDocument



> However, it is Brisbane SD which continues to have the highest growth rate of all of Australia's capital cities, its population increasing by 1.9% (33,300 people) over 2004-05.





http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@...ummary&prodno=3218.0&issue=2006-07&num=&view=



> Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 03/31/2008





> Queensland
> 
> * The population of Brisbane (C) surpassed the population milestone of 1 million during 2006-07, to reach 1,010,000.
> * Of all Statistical Local Areas (SLAs) in Australia with a population greater than 2,000 as at 30 June 2006, the three fastest-growing were in Brisbane SD, namely Wakerley (22.0%), City-Inner (21.2%) and Griffin-Mango Hill (20.2%).




Actually Jim, donate the money to charity

brty


----------



## drsmith (22 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> Here is one point we believe is unable to be 100% proved correct.
> The PDS
> 
> In Big letters says Brisbane is the fastest growing capital city in Australia …suffering from critical transport and capacity constraints   (page 7)
> ...



What's the legal requirement though ?
Statistics can be argued to show more than one point of view.

Is there direct evidence of the PDS misrepresenting ABS data ?


----------



## drsmith (22 April 2009)

*Re: Special Processing - Last Day Transfers (22 April)*



JAB_Charity said:


> No extension.  Will update later.
> 
> 
> David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust
> ...



I refer to the following article from The Australian,

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25367731-16941,00.html

and inparticular,



> In a separate development yesterday, the Federal Court yesterday rejected an application from David Barrow, of the Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust, seeking to extend by three days the deadline for registering transfers of BrisConnections units.
> 
> The charity's website says the trust views the BrisConnection partly paid units as attractive assets to acquire by way of share transfer gift.
> 
> ...



Upon reading that I really do wonder whether you are, put simply, in way over your head on this.

Your hope that any long term value would be realised by the early June auction date for unpaid units has also struck me as being wildly optimistic.


----------



## nomore4s (22 April 2009)

Some good news for retail holders caught up in this mess at last?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aGkhmHi36bY8



> Macquarie Offers to Acquire BrisConnections Units (Update1)
> Share | Email | Print | A A A
> 
> By Jesse Riseborough
> ...


----------



## skc (22 April 2009)

nomore4s said:


> Some good news for retail holders caught up in this mess at last?
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aGkhmHi36bY8




This is good news to some, but it sounds like a cruel joke to many others. 

The offer has a limit for holdings under 50,000 and based on registered details as of 14 April.

Anyone who bought on Comsec at $0.1c with a minimum of $500 transaction value would have got 500,000 shares. So they are not eligible.

It is also not clear what happens to anyone who transferred their shares to $2 companies (I assume the company is still eligible) or to Humphrey B Bear...


----------



## JAB_Charity (22 April 2009)

*Re: Special Processing - Last Day Transfers (22 April)*

Hello Drsmith,



drsmith said:


> Upon reading that I really do wonder whether you are, put simply, in way over your head on this.




Rest assured -- in our view we stand firm in shallow water with appropriate shark nets in place.


Off to Sydney today for final in-person signing of transfers.  And then some overdue R&R.


David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

http://barrow.org.au/


----------



## Prospector (22 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> I will give $250-00 to the first person to email me a copy of any public documents from the bureau stating Brisbane is in 2008 the time of making the statement , April may to be more correctly put ..Brisbane is the fastest growing capital city in Australia
> James W Byrnes & Associates






brty said:


> Jim,
> Keep the $250 for the lawyers....http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@...0A92BD4DEF2E5026CA25711D00161A77?OpenDocument
> http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@...ummary&prodno=3218.0&issue=2006-07&num=&view=




It isnt that easy brty.  The PDS was produced in April 2008; at the time the available figures were therefore 2007 figures.  Those links above describe the situation in 2004/5.  A lot can happen in three years.

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23460060-2761,00.html
*
ABS figures released today (March 31, 2008 02:00pm*) show Australia's capital cities grew by a combined 1.6 per cent in the 12 months to June 30 2007 to 13.4 million.  *Darwin was the fastest growing capital city last financial year*, expanding by 2.6 per cent to 117,395 people. *Perth came in second* (growing 2.3 per cent to 1.55 million) *followed by Brisbane* (up 2 per cent to 1.86 million).

So I believe that Jim is actually right! At the time of the PDS publication, the most recently available figures from the ABS state that Darwin, then Perth superseded Brisbane in terms of increase in % population growth.  Making Darwin the fastest growing capital city in Australia.

And from the ABS website:  http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@...ummary&prodno=3218.0&issue=2006-07&num=&view= 
MEDIA RELEASE	
March 31, 2008	
Embargoed 11.30 am (AEDT)

The fastest growing capital city SD was Darwin SD (2.6%).
And in terms of increase in actual numbers, it was Melbourne:
Melbourne SD experienced the largest population growth of all Australian capital city SDs, increasing by 61,700 people in 2006-07, followed by Sydney SD (52,000 people).


----------



## Prospector (22 April 2009)

brty said:


> http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@...ummary&prodno=3218.0&issue=2006-07&num=&view=
> The population of Brisbane (C) surpassed the population milestone of 1 million during 2006-07, to reach 1,010,000. * Of all Statistical Local Areas (SLAs) in Australia with a population greater than 2,000 as at 30 June 2006, the three fastest-growing were in Brisbane SD, namely Wakerley (22.0%), City-Inner (21.2%) and Griffin-Mango Hill (20.2%).




And the quote from this link is of no relevance to the rate of growth in Brisbane in FY 2007 as compared with other Capital Cities.  It is simply a 'stand alone' statement.  The 'three fastest growing'  refers to the three fastest growing parts of the Brisbane statistical district.   Melbourne's population is 3.68 million; Brisbane only just topped the 1 million mark in 2007.  Hope the charity wasnt counting on the money.

If you discount Darwin as a Capital City (and this could be argued) then Perth will take first place, giving Brisbane the second spot!


----------



## nomore4s (22 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> If you discount Darwin as a Capital City (and this could be argued)




Hey that's a bit harsh, I don't bag out your city (that much anyway):


----------



## Enzyme (22 April 2009)

Nick Bolton has transferred his shares:

New Nicholas Bolton twist at BrisConnections


----------



## Prospector (22 April 2009)

nomore4s said:


> Hey that's a bit harsh, I don't bag out your city (that much anyway):




  not me nomore4s - but my partner said a QC might have a go at doing this!  Just covering all the bases!

Sigh, I would have loved to have been a lawyer.....seriously!


----------



## JAB_Charity (22 April 2009)

Reminder: We are receiving donations of BCSCA units via:

(1) CommSec to CommSec account; OR

(2) From your Link sponsor-registered 


** No other Brokers -- e.g E*Trade can now be handled **


This Last Day Transfers (22 April) special processing will be available at the following times Only:


(A) Transfer Forms collected BY 11AM (drop-dead-line) WED 22 April from the serviced office of The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust:

63/85 Grattan Street, Melbourne VIC 3053

(B) Transfer Forms collected BY 4PM in CBD Sydney:

~2:30pm Link Registry Office Level 12, 680 George Street
~3:45pm CommSec 120 Pitt Street

See Link Issuer-Sponsor form:

http://www.barrow.org.au/files/transfer_form_bcsca_brisconnections.pdf

See CommSec form:

http://www.barrow.org.au/files/commsec_transfer_form_briscon.pdf


David C. Barrow, Trustee, The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust

Mbl: 0448 778 737


http://barrow.org.au/


----------



## drsmith (22 April 2009)

skc said:


> This is good news to some, but it sounds like a cruel joke to many others.
> 
> The offer has a limit for holdings under 50,000 and based on registered details as of 14 April.
> 
> ...



According to Business Spectator, Macquarie's offer to unitholders with 50,000 units or less represents only 2.5% of the total units on issue.

Going to 500,000 units may have resulted in Macquarie breaching the 20% takeover threshold so perhaps that won't come until agreement is reached with Deutsche and possibly the Queensland Government.

I would estimate about 30% of thits would still be in retail holders hands outside of the following group,

Nicholas Bolton (Williams ??): ~20%
JAB & Jim: ~15% to 25% (perhaps these guys can confirm their positions later today or tomorrow).
Macquarie: ~10% (includes buyout of private clients as reported by the AFR over the weekend.
QIC: ~10%.
Other funds: ~10% (7% in one, 3% in another).


----------



## drsmith (22 April 2009)

*Re: Special Processing - Last Day Transfers (22 April)*



JAB_Charity said:


> Rest assured -- in our view we stand firm in shallow water with appropriate shark nets in place.
> http://barrow.org.au/



With regard to your court case yesterday I recall reading in one media report that you represented yourself. Is this correct ?

If so, then to what extent are you receiving legal advice and representation ?

Should you go head to head with Macquarie's lawyers you might find they are more like a giant school of paranas than a shark.


----------



## MeToo (22 April 2009)

2.00pm and BCSCA still showing in my account today.  Looks like not getting transferred out, even with documentation in order and paying the $1000 contribution transfer fee on Monday .

Question now is what happens if share gets transferred out after tomorrow, who is liable for the $1.  

Will I be liable for the $1.00 but I no longer hold the shares?  

Then there is the class action.  Will the class action be able to stop the call?

When big boy come out to play, I prefer watching from the sideline.  At the moment feel like the ball.


----------



## jim Byrnes (22 April 2009)

*Re: Special Processing - Last Day Transfers (22 April)*



drsmith said:


> With regard to your court case yesterday I recall reading in one media report that you represented yourself. Is this correct ?
> 
> If so, then to what extent are you receiving legal advice and representation ?
> 
> Should you go head to head with Macquarie's lawyers you might find they are more like a giant school of paranas than a shark.




Dear All 

I confirm that BTRL has completed over 13 million in transfers this week 

final figure to be calculated and will be provided to the ASX , and BCML in accordance with the companies obligations to BCML and the ASX .

the final Holding of BTRL will be in the range of 63m-65m TBA.

I apologise for not being specific on causes of action. In fact I may have even thrown in a few read hearings as I know Mac Bank and BCML read the blogs .

if so , sorry guys for wasting dozens of hours of your time researching our red hearings .....

Next 
I can confirm that a very very high profile QC has agreed to act on the class action .
we also have engaged 2 snr juniors.

there also has been a meeting requestioned by Brisbane Toll Road Link .

There are additional causes of action available to BTRL and ALL unit holders once the Class action is filed.

The class action is for ALL UNIT HOLDERS PAST AND PRESENT


----------



## jim Byrnes (22 April 2009)

MeToo said:


> 2.00pm and BCSCA still showing in my account today.  Looks like not getting transferred out, even with documentation in order and paying the $1000 contribution transfer fee on Monday .
> 
> Question now is what happens if share gets transferred out after tomorrow, who is liable for the $1.
> 
> ...




speak to 
David Meadows
CHESS Team Leader | Operations

p: 02 8019 3250  f: 02 9241 7954 
E*TRADE Australia, Level 7, 10 Bridge Street, Sydney NSW 2000  
he has confirmed your transfer has been accepted and processed


----------



## Julia (22 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> speak to
> David Meadows
> CHESS Team Leader | Operations
> 
> ...



Good to hear this.  Big relief, huh, MeToo?


----------



## jim Byrnes (22 April 2009)

:
  funny who you meet in the stangest of places . Anyone want to know where David Barrow was this afternoon...We ran into each other at link registry .
We wanted to check who was still on and who was gone ...::

we also wanted to check our holdings . as at close of buisness yesterday Brisbane toll road link has 59,546,014 units registered . add to this units being proceesed by E Trade and Comsec today and BTRL will have in excess of 70 million units registered .
A close second to Australian Style investments , who despite attempts to transfer are still unit holders :...Guess someone chalenged there transfer ...no doubt they can attempt to resolve this tomorrow ...opps thats a problem .

Nick , its about time you gave me a call ...


----------



## jim Byrnes (22 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> :
> funny who you meet in the stangest of places . Anyone want to know where David Barrow was this afternoon...We ran into each other at link registry .
> We wanted to check who was still on and who was gone ...::
> 
> ...





i just got a call from a jurno , it seems that brisconnections at 4pm agreed to allow the transfer from ASI to the bankrupt to proceed ...opps not bankrupt yet . we will see


----------



## Prospector (22 April 2009)

Thanks for all the updates Jim and David - nice to hear something other than what the media decides we need to know! :


----------



## Absolutely (22 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> Thanks for all the updates Jim and David - nice to hear something other than what the media decides we need to know! :




And from what I read, half of what the media publishes is bollocks anyway!


----------



## drsmith (22 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> i just got a call from a jurno , it seems that brisconnections at 4pm agreed to allow the transfer from ASI to the bankrupt to proceed ...opps not bankrupt yet . we will see



Could that be part of the overall vote selling deal to Leighton ?


----------



## MeToo (22 April 2009)

Julia said:


> Good to hear this.  Big relief, huh, MeToo?




You bet.  As soon as I saw Jim's post on about my units transfer, I logged into my E*Trade and to my relief "not", BCSCA was still there.  So tried to ring David on the given number, answering machine.  So ring the customer service number at E*Trade.  Was told BCSCA still there with no transfer request.  

Customer rep will check with David at CHESS department, will ring back.  By 3.30pm, good new paperwork was indeed in and will transfer within 15mins.  Now 5:50pm, checked E*Trade account, and it is not there anymore.

Was Jim playing some sort of joke for leaving this till the last minute just because I accepted the offer on April 1st. 

I like to thank everyone involved in this saga especially this forum for hosting this thread.  I am sure without this thread, I wouldn't have known about Jim's BTRL offer.  Got to thank the all the partipants of this thread for all your useful comments and insights.   Got to thank Jim and Renzie for handling the transfers and answering my emails and calls.  And lastly E*Trade boys and girls for handling my inquiries throughout the last two weeks.


----------



## sails (22 April 2009)

That's great news, MeToo 

As bystanders, we can only imagine the degree of difficulty that so many have been through over this issue and some may still be going through.  But, hopefully you will sleep well tonight...


----------



## cuttlefish (22 April 2009)

way to go MeToo - it must be a relief to have them off your hands.  It sounds like you're lucky to have Jim and his backers around and then also there is David/JAB_Charity also willing to take a risk to help people out of the situation.   Its goinig to be interesting to see where this all leads.


----------



## drsmith (22 April 2009)

MeToo said:


> You bet.  As soon as I saw Jim's post on about my units transfer, I logged into my E*Trade and to my relief "not", BCSCA was still there.  So tried to ring David on the given number, answering machine.  So ring the customer service number at E*Trade.  Was told BCSCA still there with no transfer request.
> 
> Customer rep will check with David at CHESS department, will ring back.  By 3.30pm, good new paperwork was indeed in and will transfer within 15mins.  Now 5:50pm, checked E*Trade account, and it is not there anymore.
> 
> ...



Out of curiosity, how did you aquire the units in the first place ?
You were obviously was not one of those who purchased a minimum $500 parcel once the unit price had tanked to $0.001.

While I can understand your relief, you had nothing to worry about from the time Macquarie announced it's offer yesterday evening. Either way you were out of the poo.


----------



## Prospector (22 April 2009)

Great news MeToo.  And well done to the saviours!  Would love to hear from others who were caught up in the mess!


----------



## MeToo (22 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> Out of curiosity, how did you aquire the units in the first place ?
> You were obviously was not one of those who purchased a minimum $500 parcel once the unit price had tanked to $0.001.




Acquire it at the start of October when it was 3.5c to 4.0 from memory.  At the time, there were numerous articles about tolls roads and how Brisconnections had the most conservative estimates on road traffic.  I remember in class years ago, how teacher described toll roads as a money tree (45 years concession).  There were also the dividend of 5.95cents.  

The road seem like a good project too, as I have experienced the traffic jambs up near the airport when travelling to the northside every morning and afternoon.

I knew about the next $1 instalment as soon as I got Chess holding statement as it shows $1 paid $2 unpaid.  At the time I throught it was like the Telstra T3 where if you didn't pay the call, it just lapses and you just lose the units.

Anyway to keep a long story short, didn't really worry until newspapers had the stories about Fang He, the Melbourne housewife.  That was when I knew about the $1 call that was enforcable.  Around the same time I think that was 5.95c dividend got changed and Macquarie dumped their holdings.

Still thought at the time that was plenty of time sell, then got carried away with work and did not visit this stock till January and found Aussie Stock Forum, but forgot to bookmark it.  Then tried to sell the stock on E*Trade online, it wouldn't list, ah too hard, do sell order via phone.  Totally forgot about it till March, then keep googling and refound Aussie Stock Forum.  This time decided to join the forum and this thread.


drsmith said:


> While I can understand your relief, you had nothing to worry about from the time Macquarie announced it's offer yesterday evening. Either way you were out of the poo.




When Macquarie announced the offer, on first look it was problem over.  But firstly as a condition of the acceptance of the offer by BRTL, there were a section on granting power of attorney that were irrevocable.  So if I was to accept the offer by Macquarie, then I would have to get a release from BRTL.  (From a laymans point of view, not a lawyer).  

Secondly, Jim has stated of looming court action.  Would the court action block the offer from completion? 

And thirdly, what would have happened if BTRL transfer out my units after the 22nd.  Then I can't accept Macquarie offer if I don't hold any shares, but would I be still liable for the $1.00?

At least now I don't have to think or worry about any of these uncertainty.  IE anything can happen during the next few weeks.


----------



## drsmith (22 April 2009)

MeToo said:


> When Macquarie announced the offer, on first look it was problem over.  But firstly as a condition of the acceptance of the offer by BRTL, there were a section on granting power of attorney that were irrevocable.  So if I was to accept the offer by Macquarie, then I would have to get a release from BRTL.  (From a laymans point of view, not a lawyer).



How would BRTL retain (or obtain) power of attorney over the units after the closing day for transfers had the units not been transferred in time ?

This is perhaps a question Jim can clarify.



MeToo said:


> Secondly, Jim has stated of looming court action.  Would the court action block the offer from completion?



Perhaps another question Jim can clarify.



MeToo said:


> And thirdly, what would have happened if BTRL transfer out my units after the 22nd.  Then I can't accept Macquarie offer if I don't hold any shares, but would I be still liable for the $1.00?



How can BTRL transfer units after the closing day for transfers ?

If they could then how could BTRL take ownership of the units without taking ownership of the instalment liability ?

In relation to the above, is there someting specific in BTRL's transfer conditions ?

Three more questions for Jim.


----------



## jumala (23 April 2009)

MeToo said:


> Acquire it at the start of October when it was 3.5c to 4.0 from memory.  At the time, there were numerous articles about tolls roads and how Brisconnections had the most conservative estimates on road traffic.  I remember in class years ago, how teacher described toll roads as a money tree (45 years concession).  There were also the dividend of 5.95cents.
> 
> The road seem like a good project too, as I have experienced the traffic jambs up near the airport when travelling to the northside every morning and afternoon.
> 
> ...




Jim, how come this smell like rotten fish, like not as if "Mee Too" whateva


----------



## jumala (23 April 2009)

question; did your transfer go thru..  if not, jim / jab now have your units and you still wear the liability for the second $1.  not all bad news as you don't have to pay the third $1, as long as your transfer is completed by jan 2010, good lulck


----------



## MeToo (23 April 2009)

jumala said:


> question; did your transfer go thru..  if not, jim / jab now have your units and you still wear the liability for the second $1.  not all bad news as you don't have to pay the third $1, as long as your transfer is completed by jan 2010, good lulck




Peace to all, everything is sweet, as stated earlier, everything have been completed. 



> How would BRTL retain (or obtain) power of attorney over the units after the closing day for transfers had the units not been transferred in time ?




It has always been my understanding, off market transfer can occur any time as long as the registry accepts it.  The 22nd is the last day for transfer without incurring the liability, ie there is nothing to say you can't transfer after 22nd.  

Then again, I am sure share registries have guidelines that do not allow this to occur.  Is that correct?


----------



## drsmith (23 April 2009)

MeToo said:


> It has always been my understanding, off market transfer can occur any time as long as the registry accepts it.  The 22nd is the last day for transfer without incurring the liability, ie there is nothing to say you can't transfer after 22nd.
> 
> Then again, I am sure share registries have guidelines that do not allow this to occur.  Is that correct?



Then in that case we are back where we started ie, If the off-market transfer to BTRL was not accepted you would have still been the registered owner of the units and could have accepted Macquarie's offer.

That is unless there is something in BTRL's transfer conditions that states otherwise.


----------



## jim Byrnes (23 April 2009)

Boys and girls, ladies and Gentleman 

I leave you guys alone for five minutes and there are more conspiracy theories …

A number of transfers where problematic 

I must say David at e trade was a big help and Fiona at Comsec should not be forgotten 

Next week when I get my breath, they will get a small thank you gift as they deserve .

You have no idea how hard it was for some transfers to get processed 

Wrong Hin numbers 
No details of the sponsoring broker 
Wrong sponsoring broker 
Get this 
ANZ owns E TRADE
Some sellers send me transfer and Hin number and old statement 
But didn’t realize that many ETRADE customers where moved to ANZ margin loans in Vic 
So transfers where wrong and I had to get ETRADE to get ANZ to process transfer.
That was three trips to etrade and a few calls.

However as you can see by checking the asx announcement we got another 10m registered 

Thank god that’s over 

Now I can get down to the real issue 

Class action.

For the people still registered here are a few facts 

Legally you can not contract out of law 

This means the corps act overrides, company constitutions and PDS   

PDS is in effective if the constitution and the PDS are odds .

Section 4.7 to 4.9 of the respective constitutions says that units not paid for a treated as follows 

After 29th BSC can send a default letter specifying the amount payable, interest and costs. This amount is due not before 10 days from issue of the notice.

There is no forfeiter, that’s BS  …it’s a boring read but if any one wants the constitution I have them in PDF form

I am to lazy to convert to word doc, but any of you propeller heads want a copy send me an email 

I will point you to relevant sections and you can see for yourself.

And …yes you will read it here first.

As soon as we file the claim in the fed court I will scan and cut and past it onto this site.

Any mac bank shareholders beware, the share price of mac bank is likely to be hammered


----------



## yttrium (23 April 2009)

Why all the stuff about the accuracy of Brisbane's growing population? Surely one of the most questionable aspects of the PDS is the traffic report? This report seems to indicate that there will be about 70 million trips per year. Last year, the Eastern Distributor had 17.4 million trips to raise $73.7 million (source:http://www.transurban.com.au/transurban_online/tu_nav_black.nsf/obj/SHR+08/$file/040.htm). Without considering inflation, were Brisconnection's tollway to have the same traffic volumes as Transurban's  CityLink tollway (http://www.citylink.com.au/261.jsp), a tollway more than three times the length running through Melbourne, they could pay off the project's debt over the term of its concession, as well as provide unit holders with a little under 10cents in annual dividends. How Brisconnection's tollway could carry several times the traffic volume of the Eastern Distributor and match the revenue of City Link leaves me totally dumbfounded.


----------



## Olli7 (23 April 2009)

Does any one have any units that they want to get rid of or know anyone. Would like to take up to 10,000. Please let me know cheers Olli


----------



## drsmith (23 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> Boys and girls, ladies and Gentleman
> 
> I leave you guys alone for five minutes and there are more conspiracy theories …



No conspiracy theories Jim, just trying to understand why MeToo was still unsettled about his situation post the Macquarie offer.

With regard to the group photo for the alternative RE would you like Nicholas Bolton's image to be replaced with that of Williams's cat ?


----------



## Olli7 (23 April 2009)

*Bris Connections Units*

Does any one have any units that they want to get rid of or know anyone. Would like to take up to 10,000. Please let me know cheers Olli


----------



## Macquack (23 April 2009)

Firstly, Question for Jimbo - Are you on a quest to sue everybody that is not already a bankrupt?

Secondly, I dont get where you (Jim) or Brisbane Toll Road Link(BTRL) fits in the puzzle of this "class action".

BTRL with 70 million odd units has invested a big $700 plus costs in Brisconnections. You have been fully aware of the further two installments, so what damage has been done to you or your trumped up company?


----------



## Julia (23 April 2009)

A suggested explanation from Business Spectator re Macquarie's recent actions.  (And here I was fondly imagining they had suddenly become endowed with a level of altruism.)

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ul-exit-pd20090422-RCCEW?OpenDocument&src=kgb


----------



## Prospector (23 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> Boys and girls, ladies and Gentleman
> I leave you guys alone for five minutes and there are more conspiracy theories …



Hey Jim, we have been doing 60+ pages of conspiracy stuff until you and David stumbled upon us! :



yttrium said:


> Why all the stuff about the accuracy of Brisbane's growing population?



Because it is stated as fact in the PDS and it isn't?



yttrium said:


> Surely one of the most questionable aspects of the PDS is the traffic report? This report seems to indicate that there will be about 70 million trips per year.  How Brisconnection's tollway could carry several times the traffic volume of the Eastern Distributor and match the revenue of City Link leaves me totally dumbfounded.




That may well be the case but it is difficult to prove as it is based on assumptions and not a published statistic.


----------



## jim Byrnes (23 April 2009)

yttrium said:


> Why all the stuff about the accuracy of Brisbane's growing population? Surely one of the most questionable aspects of the PDS is the traffic report? This report seems to indicate that there will be about 70 million trips per year. Last year, the Eastern Distributor had 17.4 million trips to raise $73.7 million (source:http://www.transurban.com.au/transurban_online/tu_nav_black.nsf/obj/SHR+08/$file/040.htm). Without considering inflation, were Brisconnection's tollway to have the same traffic volumes as Transurban's  CityLink tollway (http://www.citylink.com.au/261.jsp), a tollway more than three times the length running through Melbourne, they could pay off the project's debt over the term of its concession, as well as provide unit holders with a little under 10cents in annual dividends. How Brisconnection's tollway could carry several times the traffic volume of the Eastern Distributor and match the revenue of City Link leaves me totally dumbfounded.




ok all you i have enclosed the link to the brisconnections PDS 
http://www.brisconnections.com.au/Portals/0/docs/investors/Final_PDS_NoApplication 24 June 2008.PDF

or just go to brisconnections web site and follow your nose to PDS 
have a look and i am very keen for the good readers and bloggers to provide me info re PDS mistakes . The lawyers and i have found 42 mistakes in the PDS


----------



## doctorj (23 April 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> way to go MeToo - it must be a relief to have them off your hands. It sounds like you're lucky to have Jim and his backers around and then also there is David/JAB_Charity also willing to take a risk to help people out of the situation.



Is anyone else concerned that all is not as it seems? There’s always a pay off and nothing is for free, especially now given money isn’t as easy as it once was. I’d encourage everyone with a material exposure to this to *seek their own independent legal opinion*, rather than relying on the altruism of some chap on a forum.


----------



## jackson8 (23 April 2009)

doctorj said:


> Is anyone else concerned that all is not as it seems? There’s always a pay off and nothing is for free, especially now given money isn’t as easy as it once was. I’d encourage everyone with a material exposure to this to *seek their own independent legal opinion*, rather than relying on the altruism of some chap on a forum.




all smoke and mirrors 
just look at one of the early instigators mr bolton, the knight in shining armour coming to the rescue of the illinformed. 
there is no altruism when it come to business and finance imo.


----------



## jim Byrnes (23 April 2009)

doctorj said:


> Is anyone else concerned that all is not as it seems? There’s always a pay off and nothing is for free, especially now given money isn’t as easy as it once was. I’d encourage everyone with a material exposure to this to *seek their own independent legal opinion*, rather than relying on the altruism of some chap on a forum.




is not the purpose of the forum for people to come together , share thoughts and information . some serous and some a bit light hearted .

what i have said i will do i have done . that is evident by the fact that i arranged for 60 million unit to go from people who wanted out to someone who has a plan .
as for altruism , lets not mince words. 
there are always comercial risks in all forms of commerce .
this is no different .

but BSC has been so negligent in there PDS someone has to do something .
we are , again i shall be judged by my actions not my words .

i simply ask for those who have a view on errors in the PDS and or those who may have important information to share same with me .


----------



## jim Byrnes (23 April 2009)

jackson8 said:


> all smoke and mirrors
> just look at one of the early instigators mr bolton, the knight in shining armour coming to the rescue of the illinformed.
> there is no altruism when it come to business and finance imo.




There will be two forms of pay of for me and my client .
Money of course we have built up a big stake , we have formulated a plan of attack . we have prepared a class action ,we have arranged to fund same .
the funder makes a tidy fee (about 33% ) of the total settlement some .
the agrieved get 66% ...
until now they where geting shafted , zero , zip zilch ..nothing .

whats better a 100% of nothing or 66% of something .

second payoff is very personal to me and it comes in two forms .

mac Bank have been a little unkind to me in the past and this is a little payback . also having had an interesting and not always smoth sailing corporate life , does anyone understand what sought of personal satisfaction one derives my not only getting paid to do a service but helping close to 1000 people who have been badly efected by there dealings in BSC .
saving many from what would be finacial ruin. It is soul satisfying and also good for ones own karma


----------



## doctorj (23 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> is not the purpose of the forum for people to come together , share thoughts and information . some serous and some a bit light hearted .



Everything has its time and place.  When the livelihoods and homes of so many families are on the line, this is probably not the place for it.



jim Byrnes said:


> there are always comercial risks in all forms of commerce .






jim Byrnes said:


> this is no different .




Exactly why people should *seek their own independent legal opinion*, rather than relying on the altruism of some chap on a forum.


----------



## lesm (24 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> There will be two forms of pay of for me and my client .
> Money of course we have built up a big stake , we have formulated a plan of attack . we have prepared a class action ,we have arranged to fund same .
> the funder makes a tidy fee (about 33% ) of the total settlement some .
> the agrieved get 66% ...
> ...




Agree with Doc.

You still have to win the case, so at this point in time what do they have 66% of, besides promises or hopes yet to be fulfilled. You have been paid by a number of these shareholders to take their shares, which will assist in funding your case. Since when has it really cost $1,000 to conduct a share transfer.

It remains to be seen whether you guys are really benevolent benefactors or just a smarter form of 'Bolton', with deep pockets, under another guise.

For the little guys affected by this, the former would be preferrable, but only time will tell. Alternatively, have the little guys been played as pawns in a larger game.


----------



## doctorj (24 April 2009)

lesm said:


> Alternatively, have the little guys been played as pawns in a larger game.



This is usually the case in these sort of games.


----------



## cuttlefish (24 April 2009)

Jim,  not sure if its relevant, but when I was having a look through all of the BCS announcements after listing I noticed there appeared to be a fair bit of inconsistency in the way the various institutions (including Macquarie from memory) reported substantial shareholdings - several of the substantial shareholder notices refer to the stock as ordinary fully paid if my memory serves me right - particularly the earlier ones - any investor that was referring to BCS related ASX releases could have been mislead by the units being referred to in these notices in this way (all just my opinion - I'm no accountant, lawyer or stock expert of course).

Also from memory the clarifying paragraphs about the units that appear at the bottom of a lot of BCS's more recent ASX releases from  memory don't appear at the bottom of all of their earlier releases.

If you hunt through the BCS related ASX releases there are quite a few releases (from memory) that refer to the units as 'ordinary fully paid' - particularly earlier releases.   (I posted some other things that appeared a bit inconsistent in the various asx releases earlier in this thread but its a bit of a trawl back to find them - but its worth having a look through the timing of some of the substantial shareholder change announcements vs for example the announcement that the dividend was to be suspended etc.).


disclosure: have never held BCS units


----------



## TMackey (24 April 2009)

You have to be joking don't you Jim? 33%. 

And you reckon that you've found 42 material errors in the PDS, but just looking for some help from others?

By the looks of things, it doesn't look like the old litigation funding business is going well, so i suspect you'll end up with 0. 
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/business/BusinessNews/fi30533.htm

If it was so straightforward, wouldn't the other litigation funders be involved.

Afterall if something appears too good to be true, it usually is


----------



## brty (24 April 2009)

Jim,



> Here is one point we believe is unable to be 100% proved correct.
> The PDS
> 
> In Big letters says Brisbane is the fastest growing capital city in Australia …suffering from critical transport and capacity constraints (page 7)
> ...




I believe they may have sourced their information from the following document, about "Population Projections 2004-2101"

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/B1E6E31CD9A3EA61CA2570C7007296DD/$File/32220_2004%20to%202101.pdf

The Brisbane projections were probably drawn from the info between pg 89 and pg 141.

Of particular interest to you may be the 'Explanatory Notes' on page 142, specifically point 6, where it mentions........

"The projections are not intended as predictions or forecasts,........."

brty


----------



## sails (24 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> ... saving many from what would be finacial ruin. It is soul satisfying and also good for ones own karma




I agree, it certainly is soul satisfying to make a positive difference.  I sincerely hope these little guys haven't been played as pawns as they have already paid heavily in terms of emotional distress.

Between the three Bs (Humphrey excluded!), they have relieved many mums and dads of their toxic units.  IMO, for this they should be applauded.  What strategies are played out from here will hopefully remain between the big guys and the mums and dads they rescued can now get on with their lives.


----------



## Prospector (24 April 2009)

sails said:


> Between the three Bs (Humphrey excluded!), they have relieved many mums and dads of their toxic units.  IMO, for this they should be applauded.  What strategies are played out from here will hopefully remain between the big guys and the mums and dads they rescued can now get on with their lives.




Absolutely!  All they wanted to do was remove that horrendous liability.  And whatever the motives of the big players are, the liability was all that mattered to the mums and dads.  Who cares if the big players then go on to make a profit from it?  I certainly wouldnt have given a toss!


----------



## jumala (24 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> Absolutely!  All they wanted to do was remove that horrendous liability.  And whatever the motives of the big players are, the liability was all that mattered to the mums and dads.  Who cares if the big players then go on to make a profit from it?  I certainly wouldnt have given a toss!




dont you people get it ??  as previously posted.  jim and jab now have your unit transfer forms signed by you.  jim and jab lodge forms after the 22nd.  you are still liable for the $1 call.  jim and jab have untill jan 2010 to cash in on your units, which you signed over. imo.                                              by the way jim your alter ego " metoo" is too obvious.


----------



## stoxclimber (24 April 2009)

Jim, out of interest, why are you banned from being a company director? Don't have to answer if you don't want, just saw it brought up in some of the media reports.


----------



## poguemahone (24 April 2009)

jumala said:


> jim your alter ego " metoo" is too obvious.




In the interests of clarity and shovelling of bullsh*t can the Admin's clear this up one way or another.. Ip's,emails,ISP's,Retina Eye Scans..


----------



## Enzyme (24 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> ok all you i have enclosed the link to the brisconnections PDS
> http://www.brisconnections.com.au/Portals/0/docs/investors/Final_PDS_NoApplication 24 June 2008.PDF
> 
> or just go to brisconnections web site and follow your nose to PDS
> have a look and i am very keen for the good readers and bloggers to provide me info re PDS mistakes . The lawyers and i have found 42 mistakes in the PDS



I don't know how helpful this one is - from an article highly critical of the BCS traffic forecasts:  link



> *BRISCONNECTIONS: A CASE STUDY*
> 
> One of the key risks identified in the BrisConnections Airport Link Project Product Disclosure Statement is that of traffic volumes (see section 6.2.1, page 60). The PDS states that:
> 
> ...




Edit:  To add to that, the ARUP traffic forecasts have since been widely question.  Briscon came out with a public statement clarifying their forcasts and defending them.  That clarification made no mention of fuel prices as a variable on the projected traffic volumes.  link  There is a possible argument that they've acknowledged it as a risk in preparing their PDS but then completely ignored it in preparing their critical traffic forecasts.

I know there were more substantial criticisms of those forecasts - I'm just trying to find that link again...


----------



## Enzyme (24 April 2009)

I'm getting things a little out of order here.

A link from my previous post was Brisconnections' response to criticism's of the arup traffic forecasts.  Now here are those criticisms.  From that article:



> *Questions submitted to Arup*
> 
> 1.    Queensland Transport Facts 2008 was published in May 2008. Why is it not being made available to the public like previous versions? _(edit - the forecasts were based on 2006 data)_
> 
> ...


----------



## Enzyme (24 April 2009)

Someone really should show the Brisconnections management how to use Google.  In their response to the criticism that the traffic forecasts were based on out of data they said:



> BrisConnections is not aware if the 2008 Transport Facts report has been distributed *publicly*, but we note that it is not on the Queensland Transport website.




With Google it took me less than two minutes to find that you can order the 2008 data from the author here with pricing details  here.

Arup were paid $4.5 million for their forecast, and Brisconnections based a 4.8 billion dollar project and staked $1.2 billion of shareholder funds on it.  You'd think they could do better than just a quick check of a Government website for the current data.

I emphasised the word _publicly_ available in the Briscon statement.  Having now seen the pricing detail for that report - $60,000 for government or a large company - I wonder if that might mean they could have known about the updated report but bauked at paying for it.

The other thing briscon said in their response was:



> We also note that in relation to the 2006 report, Queensland Transport has the following disclaimer on its website:
> 
> ''The report is not a formally endorsed Queensland Government statement on transport trends but is an independent assessment prepared using both public and private sector data sources, with quality controls overseen by supporting agencies.''




WTF is that supposed to mean?  Not only did we fail to use the most up to date data available , but the out of date data we did use isn't endorsed by the Queensland Government either!  WTF.


----------



## Prospector (24 April 2009)

jumala said:


> dont you people get it ??  as previously posted.  jim and jab now have your unit transfer forms signed by you.  jim and jab lodge forms after the 22nd.  you are still liable for the $1 call.  jim and jab have untill jan 2010 to cash in on your units, which you signed over. imo.                                              by the way jim your alter ego " metoo" is too obvious.




Is that true? You are calling them liars?


----------



## prawn_86 (24 April 2009)

jumala said:


> by the way jim your alter ego " metoo" is too obvious.




Be assured that ASF has very good multi-nic detection programs in place. However if you feel that soemthing has slipped passed, please report it to mods or admin, rather than possibly slandering an innocent user.


----------



## jumala (24 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> Is that true? You are calling them liars?




just more conspiracy stuff. jim transferred 9,981,509 has 15.2%. no statement from jab, hope he proves the theory wrong as well


----------



## Prospector (24 April 2009)

jumala said:


> dont you people get it ??  as previously posted.  jim and jab now have your unit transfer forms signed by you.  jim and jab lodge forms after the 22nd.  you are still liable for the $1 call.  jim and jab have untill jan 2010 to cash in on your units, which you signed over. imo. by the way jim your alter ego " metoo" is too obvious.




So does that mean we did actually get it and metoo is not Jim's alter ego?  Did I hear an apology happening here?


----------



## jumala (24 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> So does that mean we did actually get it and metoo is not Jim's alter ego?  Did I hear an apology happening here?




btrl request for general meeting, appears that jim is serious hence an unreserved apology to jim. hope he has succes in his fight for unit holders


----------



## Macquack (24 April 2009)

*BrisCon and Macquarie Group face $1 billion class action by BTRL*
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,25380244-14334,00.html



> BTRL, owned by US-based New Hampton Distressed Asset Fund, holds a 15.2 per cent stake in the troubled BrisConnections trust and filed the action with the federal court in Sydney today, representative Jim Byrnes told AAP.




Just to reinterate, 15.2% x 390 million units x $.0001 per unit consideration paid = a total investment of $592.80 by BTRL. 

Jimbo Byrnes's BTRL pro rata claim for damages in the class action should be no more than $592.80 plus costs.


----------



## nathanblack (25 April 2009)

hi mac, that figure you mention is only a very rough calculation. as stated by jim share parcels under 500,000 would not be paid for, and owners must contribute to the class action fund $1000.

so of the 50mil odd shares some may have been purchased for zero consideration. in addition the class action is partially funded by theses smaller share holders.


----------



## Absolutely (25 April 2009)

nathanblack said:


> hi mac, that figure you mention is only a very rough calculation. as stated by jim share parcels under 500,000 would not be paid for, and owners must contribute to the class action fund $1000.
> 
> so of the 50mil odd shares some may have been purchased for zero consideration. in addition the class action is partially funded by theses smaller share holders.




Think what Mac is saying is what damages has BTRL directly incurred without knowing it? Answer is zero. (Or all of $500 or so). They knowingly paid not much for shares which have a high liability attached to them which they are not prepared to pay.

The argument in court I guess is that BTRL (and others) relied on information contained in the PDS at time of purchase. That information is now going to be alleged to be deficient or wrong. 

Still, if it is proven correct I'm not sure how you get a payout of a lot more then you originally contributed (with interest) plus the costs of the court action???? What else do they need to be compensated for? 

Thinking through this, I guess if they can get all of the initial contribution back and they have got a lot of share holders on board with the class action they are asking for 33% of the total payout. Shareholders will get 66% of the original contribution back. So that makes sense provided they have got a lot of share holders signed up to the class action. Complicated. And they have got to win of course.

Good luck Jim. I'm cheering for you.


----------



## Macquack (25 April 2009)

Absolutely said:


> Good luck Jim. I'm cheering for you.




Jim is no angel.

From Wikipedia



> Jim Byrnes is an Australian businessman and convicted criminal, based in Sydney and specialising in property development and mortgage finance.
> 
> Byrnes served 18 months in jail starting in 1986 for malicious wounding and the supply of heroin. In 1992 he went bankrupt, owing A$8 million. In 1994 he assisted businessman Alan Bond in Bond's bankruptcy proceedings.
> 
> ...




Also, what is "New Hampton Distressed Asset Fund"? A hedge fund? Try googleing it, no results except in relation to Brisconnections.


----------



## Enzyme (25 April 2009)

I'm still responding to Jim's request for comment on flaws in the PDS.  I just didn't quite summarise where I was going with that line of argument in my previous posts.  Trying to bring that together:

1. Briscon acknowledge in the PDS that traffic volume is a key risk of the project;

2. Briscon acknowledge (five times) in the PDS that fuel prices can affect traffic volume, including stating;



> The impact of a significant and sustained increase in fuel prices on traffic volumes is a risk that should also be considered. Increased fuel prices may lead to a reduction in car ownership, car utilisation and a shift in modal share to public transport, walking, cycling or motorbikes and scooters. Any developments that reduce traffic volumes or inhibit the growth in traffic volumes on Airport Link could have a material adverse effect on BrisConnections’ financial condition and results of operations.




3. When preparing the critical traffic forecasts, Briscon (through Arup) used data from 2005/2006 when data for 2007/2008 was readily available. It wasn't free, but anyone could get it. This failure to use the up to date data is highly significant because:

a. Fuel prices had increased dramatically over the period of time covered by the new data. Though it was raised as a significant risk in the PDS and up to date data was available, the effect of higher fuel prices was ignored in the vital traffic forecasts and financial statements provided in the PDS;

b. Any change to the underlying assumptions can have significant material effect on Brisconnections financial condition. This information should be provided to shareholders.

Actually, on a close read you can see a complete disconnect between the PDS and Arup on fuel prices generally. It is obvious that the person(s) who wrote the Arup report (available in Section 10 of the PDS) never read Section 6 (Risks), and vice versa. Section 6 freely talks of the risks of higher fuel prices, but the Arup report in Section 10 shows that fuel prices played absolutely no part in the development of the traffic forecast.  Brisconnections acknowledge fuel prices as a risk, but didn't even consider it in preparing their forecasts.

It could be worth getting your lawyers to have a close look at section 10 - the Arup report:



> *3 Key assumptions*
> 
> In preparing traffic forecasts it is necessary to make a number of assumptions. This section sets out some of the key assumptions used in the APL Traffic Model. *The assumptions adopted are considered reasonable given the data currently available at the time of the preparation of the traffic forecasts.*




Given that we know they used data more than two years old when current data was available, that could be a bit of a fly in the ointment for them.

Another thing about the availability of the 2008 data:  While it could cost up to $60k for a large company, the cost for a consulting firm like Arup would be a fraction of that.  Google has also told me that anyone can access the report for free in the National Library in Canberra.  It would only have cost a couple of hundred dollars in airfares to send someone to Canberra for the day to get what they needed.  I haven't even bothered to check the various state libraries.

So Jim - how about some feeback. Had your lawyers found these issues?


----------



## nathanblack (25 April 2009)

Macquack said:


> Jim is no angel.
> 
> From Wikipedia
> 
> ...





its a US owned hedge fund with a registered address which is same address as Jim Byrnes. Macquarie are questioning if it really exists. Bit irelevant anyway isnt it? anyone can raise $500 to purcharse 15% stake. and anyone can file for bankruptcy if the $1 call is enforced.

mum and dads have been relieved of the burden of debt and jim/BTRL/New Hampton will now TRY to make a profit. There option is hush money in the style Bolton recieved, or litigation which has begun.

The litigation path will be costly and possibly too late to avoid the $1 call. IF the litigation wins, BTRL will be entitled to very little as they lost very little due to negligence or not. I guess the real payout is in the 33% commission the will take on any payout IF they win. It is partially funded by shareholder contibutions to the litigation fund of $1000, so i guess little at risk for a potentially large reward.

I wish everyone luck in the litigation. 66% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Hopefully some of the claimants are original holders or i cant see a win legally.

if all else fails we can organise a baseball game.


----------



## Julia (25 April 2009)

Jim and David:

Can you unequivocally and categorically assure all the people from whom you have accepted/bought BCSCA shares that under no circumstances will they still be liable for either of the two $1 payments owing?

With thanks.


----------



## Macquack (25 April 2009)

nathanblack said:


> if all else fails we can organise a baseball game.




Does Jimbo still have his trusty old baseball bat or was it confiscated by the police?

Bolton would make for a good "switch-hitter".


----------



## yttrium (25 April 2009)

Enzyme

I have been looking at the project on a comparative basis with other projects, considering parameters like construction cost per km, traffic volume, and annual revenue. For Brisconnections, you are looking at over $700 million per kilometre, compared with $100 million per kilometre for Melbourne's city link (completed 1999), and about $95 million per kilometre for Sydney's Eastern Distributor (completed 2000). Allowing for 4% inflation and assuming costs at 2012 prices, I find it hard to cost the Brisconnections project at more than $1.2 billion, or about 25% of its cost. Yet Brisconnections management are claiming that the project will deliver long term value to unit holders: Are they for real?

Yes, I'm jeering from the sidelines, but quite frankly I cannot see how this project wont collapse into a black hole of debt.


----------



## nathanblack (25 April 2009)

yttrium said:


> Enzyme
> 
> For Brisconnections, you are looking at over $700 million per kilometre, compared with $100 million per kilometre for Melbourne's city link (completed 1999), and about $95 million per kilometre for Sydney's Eastern Distributor (completed 2000).
> 
> Yes, I'm jeering from the sidelines, but quite frankly I cannot see how this project wont collapse into a black hole of debt.




is it funded by debt or shareholder equity? or a combination? even if some holders default isnt macquary and duetch liable as underwriters to make up the shortfall? they can then chase defaulters through court to get back whatever they can if thety deem worthwhile(cost and image).

also has there been a cost blowout or were investors aware of the cost in the PDS? i thought its running on cost and ahead of schedule? maybe $700mil/km has factored in cost over runs. i dont see them going broke.


----------



## yttrium (25 April 2009)

NathanBlack

My concern is twofold. One is that I wonder how many would have subscribed for units had a per kilometre cost comparison with other toll road projects been included in the PDS? Management are very enthusiastic, yet the project seems very expensive by this comparison. My other concern is the question of why Brisconnections believes that the project will raise enough revenue to pay off its debt? The only toll road in Australia generating the revenue that Brisconnections would require for this is the City Link toll road in Melbourne.  This toll road is three times the size as Brisconnection's toll road, and services a population over twice the size.

Maybe there are parameters that would change my opinion, but from what I am looking at I cannot hold a favourable one.


----------



## drsmith (25 April 2009)

Julia said:


> Jim and David:
> 
> Can you unequivocally and categorically assure all the people from whom you have accepted/bought BCSCA shares that under no circumstances will they still be liable for either of the two $1 payments owing?
> 
> With thanks.



I too am curious about the above.


----------



## jim Byrnes (25 April 2009)

Macquack said:


> Does Jimbo still have his trusty old baseball bat or was it confiscated by the police?
> 
> Bolton would make for a good "switch-hitter".




//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Macquack , clearly the name fits who your a spin doctor for .

Have been silent as i have been so dam busy.

Was a little disappointed that a few doubters have said UN kind things 

So lets get the record straight.

I said BTRL would buy units 
I said BTRL would transfer units 

Look at the ASX announcement.

We have about 60m registered 

So let's see who is full of it.

Said there would be a class action filed and lodged 

Check the news, I did what I said.

Ok, some smarty thinks we did it to get a few bucks for the transfers 

The legal bills for getting the transfers done so far where 5 times what we got paid.

So wake up to your self 

Next, do you think that the class action is cheap? 

Try, we have provisioned 1mil in legals for the next 90 days.

Please don’t second guess.

If you want to see the first claim filed and served send me an email and I will send it to you  

People don’t sign up to be in the class action, wrong they are all in it ...that's the law in the federal court.

If they don’t want to be in it they apply to be released.

What does it cost them?

We don’t ask for or want 1c 

The funder pays every penny needed 

The funder gets his pound of flesh but lets be clear 66% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

And well ASIC are still sitting on the fence, no one else stepped up.

I did, and I am proud to say I have done everything I said I would 

I asked for people's opinions and any information people had.

Well someone came forward and confirmed how they where pressured by Mac Bank day one.
They have an existing complaint to a regulatory which is going nowhere.

That’s what I want, more people coming forward.

I invite all present and past unit holders to attend the federal court in Sydney Tuesday .show your support and let the judge see that there is a support group. So far I have a large number of people willing to attend.

I even had a guy who wanted to arrange a rally and march on Anna Bligh and Macquarie Bank .

Well thanks for the support 

Send me your email contacts if you want to receive up dates 

Jim Byrnes 

j.byrnes@alfpl.com


----------



## drsmith (25 April 2009)

nathanblack said:


> is it funded by debt or shareholder equity? or a combination? even if some holders default isnt macquary and duetch liable as underwriters to make up the shortfall? they can then chase defaulters through court to get back whatever they can if thety deem worthwhile(cost and image).
> 
> also has there been a cost blowout or were investors aware of the cost in the PDS? i thought its running on cost and ahead of schedule? maybe $700mil/km has factored in cost over runs. i dont see them going broke.



I have not looked at the PDS in great detail but my understanding is roughly as follows,

Debt financing: ~3bn bank syndicate funding with payment of upcoming instalment from unitholders/underwriters.
Equity financing: ~1.2bn equity financing from initial float/subsequent unitholder instalments + equity finance from Leighton in exchange for units around the completion of the project (not sure exactly how much).

So, returns for unitholders are somewhat leveraged.


----------



## jim Byrnes (25 April 2009)

nathanblack said:


> its a US owned hedge fund with a registered address which is same address as Jim Byrnes. Macquarie are questioning if it really exists. Bit irelevant anyway isnt it? anyone can raise $500 to purcharse 15% stake. and anyone can file for bankruptcy if the $1 call is enforced.
> 
> mum and dads have been relieved of the burden of debt and jim/BTRL/New Hampton will now TRY to make a profit. There option is hush money in the style Bolton recieved, or litigation which has begun.
> 
> ...


----------



## jim Byrnes (25 April 2009)

Enzyme said:


> I'm still responding to Jim's request for comment on flaws in the PDS.  I just didn't quite summarise where I was going with that line of argument in my previous posts.  Trying to bring that together:
> 
> 1. Briscon acknowledge in the PDS that traffic volume is a key risk of the project;
> 
> ...




i am very thank full for this . we have the fuel risk info that was resently put out but your info was spot on . we had not got to the 2006 as opposed to 2008 dats .many thanks


----------



## drsmith (25 April 2009)

Jim,

I refer to your proposed unitholder meeting.

You are in control of approximately 15% and JAB_Charity may have 5% (yet to be confirmed). With Bolton/Williams (~20% holding) you are beating the drums of war (publically at least).

You obviously need their support so how do you hope to get your resolutions up at any such meeting ?


----------



## jim Byrnes (26 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> Jim,
> 
> I refer to your proposed unitholder meeting.
> 
> ...




sun su 
art of war

it will all become clear soon

i am gaged by my lawyers .
i am however able to say the three musketers moto prevails


----------



## nathanblack (26 April 2009)

3 muskateers? 

you really believe if bolton/williams was offered money again by leighton or other to secure a vote of positive outcome for the project they wouldnt accept?

certainly meet with them and discuss strategy but never rely on anyone but yourself.

SORRY: i got the registered address of the hedge fund incorrect...damn journalists. Also i must admit that you have done everything you have promised, and if you have delivered thus far who am i to doubt the success of your legal battle. your obviously well informed and resourced.

goodluck. you already got some mum and dads off the hook now lets hope u can get them some compensation.


----------



## drsmith (26 April 2009)

It will be interesting to see if that motto becomes every man for himself when/if the next bag of money drops.

That I imagine is what Leighton/Macquarie will be hoping for as they will want to divide the major rebel unitholders to minimise potential damage. Part of their battle strategy I suspect will remain divide and conquer. It's worked once allready.

For JAD/Jim/(NB & JHW) it's about them all being actually convinced that their best prospect for riches is a united strategy.


----------



## Macquack (26 April 2009)

nathanblack said:


> goodluck. you already got some mum and dads off the hook now lets hope u can get them some compensation.




I started off feeling sorry for the "mum and dad" investors who unknowingly bought in at 0.1 cents and with an investment of just $500 incurred a debt of $1 million.

Now, if this group of "mum and Dad" investors have escaped possible bankruptcy by off loading their shares to Bolton, Barrow or Byrnes, then good luck to them. 

However, I dont see how this group should be rewarded for their incompetance by way of a compensation payout.


----------



## Prospector (26 April 2009)

Macquack said:


> I started off feeling sorry for the "mum and dad" investors who unknowingly bought in at 0.1 cents and with an investment of just $500 incurred a debt of $1 million.
> 
> Now, if this class of "mum and Dad" investors have escaped possible bankruptcy by off loading their shares to Bolton, Barrow or Byrnes, then good luck to them.
> 
> However, I dont see how this group should be rewarded for their incompetance by way of a compensation payout.




What exactly would they receive compensation for though?  I agree, no compensation is warranted.


----------



## Macquack (26 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> What exactly would they receive compensation for though?  I agree, no compensation is warranted.




There was a lot of "pain and suffering" involved initially when they realised what they had done.


----------



## Prospector (26 April 2009)

Macquack said:


> There was a lot of "pain and suffering" involved initially when they realised what they had done.



Ah, but you dont get compensated for pain and suffering.  Just for actual loss or potential loss.  You dont suppose they could get it because they had to give away their shares?


----------



## Enzyme (26 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> i am very thank full for this . we have the fuel risk info that was resently put out but your info was spot on . we had not got to the 2006 as opposed to 2008 dats .many thanks



I've re-read the links I posted, and think I need to clarify.  Firtsy, I might have quoted Briscon out of context.  Secondly, I can't absolutely prove from the PDS or the Briscon response to the criticisms that they used the 2006 Transport facts report instead of the 2008 report.

To recap, the criticism of the forecast is here, and the brisconnections response is here.

The first criticism is that _"1.    Queensland Transport Facts 2008 was published in May 2008. Why is it not being made available to the public like previous versions?"_

Well, I know the answer to that now.  That report is subject to copyright, and is available for a fee.  Brisconnections can't make it public.  Only the author can.

So if Brisconnections were responding to that specific criticism, then their response of _"BrisConnections is not aware if the 2008 Transport Facts report has been distributed publicly, but we note that it is not on the Queensland Transport website."_ might be reasonable.  It is not well worded, as they should have said it is up to the author to make it public, but their response could be reasonable.

That said, the Brisconnections response to the other criticisms seems evasive.  There is a specific criticism that they used the 2006 Transport Facts report.  Their response mentions both the 2006 and the 2008 reports, but it specifically doesn't say what they used.

There is a specific criticism that Arup used a 2004 baseline for Vehicle Kilometers Travelled (VKT), which ignored an 8% decline in that figure over the next three years.  That criticism is not responded to by Brisconnections.

That 2004 baseline _could_ have been based on the 2004/2005 transport facts report - the out of date report I referred to - but I can't tell for sure from the PDS.

Have a close look at the article containing the criticisms of the traffic forcasts.  See what you can verify.  It could be worth checking with the Journalist who wrote the story.  It also mentioned "Sydney University's Dr John Goldberg" as a critic of the traffic forcasts.  It could be worth talking to him as he should know a lot more about traffic forecasts than you or I, and he could be the origin of the criticisms in that article.  He might be able to expand on those for you.


----------



## Julia (26 April 2009)

Julia said:


> Jim and David:
> 
> Can you unequivocally and categorically assure all the people from whom you have accepted/bought BCSCA shares that under no circumstances will they still be liable for either of the two $1 payments owing?
> 
> With thanks.






drsmith said:


> I too am curious about the above.



David seems to have disappeared.  However, Jim, you have posted since the above entries so presumably have read requests from drsmith and myself.

Could you kindly answer, please?
Thank you.


----------



## sails (26 April 2009)

jim Byrnes said:


> ....mum and dads have been relieved of the burden of debt and jim/BTRL/New Hampton will now TRY to make a profit. ....




Julia, I understood Jim answered with this snippet above from one of his recent posts. Click on the blue arrow to read his whole post.  If I've misunderstood, I'm sure Jim will correct...


----------



## Enzyme (26 April 2009)

Actually Jim, you really should try to have a chat with that Dr John Goldberg.  From my five minutes Googling him I think it could really be worth your while to catch up with him, and I think he might really like to talk to you.

It seems as though he has been a long time critic of the Macquarie model for toll roads, and was questioning their viability on the 7:30 report back in 2005.  It seems Macquarie didn't like that much and brought in some big guns to pressure his University into publicly disassociating him from the University:  link.

Then I saw this comment from him (or at least someone on the internet using his name - you can never be sure) link:



> I gave reasons why the IPO document for Brisconnections was misleading back in February 9, 2009 (AFR). This I consider is of major significance and I am pleased that ASIC now intends to investigate the financial model.




It sounds to me like he is no friend of either Macquarie or Brisconnections, but knows a thing or two about financial forecasting for toll roads.  You really should catch up with him for a coffee and exchange some stories.  I'd suggest trying to contact him through Sydney University.


----------



## Julia (26 April 2009)

sails said:


> Julia, I understood Jim answered with this snippet above from one of his recent posts. Click on the blue arrow to read his whole post.  If I've misunderstood, I'm sure Jim will correct...



Perhaps I'm unreasonably influenced by the machiavellian twists and turns in this whole situation, but I don't find the post you refer to unequivocal.

How hard is it to just post a few words in clear answer to the question?


----------



## stoxclimber (27 April 2009)

New article on Jim and another director of BTRL in the Herald today. For a bunch of white knights, their background seems suprisingly black.


By the way, does BTRL have FIRB approval for a >15% stake? The Herald puts the stake at 15.2%.


----------



## Sean K (27 April 2009)

*BrisConn $1.3bn claim reaches court*
Scott Rochfort
April 27, 2009

THE BrisConnections debacle will make its Sydney courthouse debut this morning, where the banned company director Jim Byrnes will launch his $1.3 billion claim against the toll-road project and its adviser Macquarie Group.


----------



## brty (27 April 2009)

Let's see, playing devil's advocate here.

Sydney court case, judge decides case can proceed, Jim's mob asks for a stay of immediate $1 installment, judge agrees with ruling.

Macquarie/briscon/leighton need the next installment immediately or funding from other sources falls over. 

Macq have no choice but to kill off court case by settling, ie buying out "Jim's mob".

This saga has lots of legs still, good to be only an observer from outside.

brty


----------



## Macquack (29 April 2009)

*BrisConnections share deadline passes*
Wednesday April 29, 2009, 5:16 pm
http://au.biz.yahoo.com/090429/31/260h7.html

Does anyone know why Jim Byrnes's claim for interlocutory relief to defer payment of the second installment was not pursued?


----------



## drsmith (29 April 2009)

Instalment defaults from the top 10 unitholders are expected to be $180m.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=awWiw5LJiiBw&refer=australia

Team ?? Williams(Bolton)/BTRL(Brynes) would comprise about $136m of that.

David,
If you are still following this thread, how many did you get into the charity in the end ?


----------



## itsonlymoney (29 April 2009)

Darn it....i knew I forgot to pay that bill today! Brisconn sent me a nice little reminder with a handy bpay option highlighted! As if I am going to bpay $670000 dollars by close of business.....I wonder do they take layby!!!


----------



## drsmith (30 April 2009)

itsonlymoney said:


> Darn it....i knew I forgot to pay that bill today! Brisconn sent me a nice little reminder with a handy bpay option highlighted! As if I am going to bpay $670000 dollars by close of business.....I wonder do they take layby!!!



Why didn't you transfer them to Jim or David while you had the chance ?

In any case there's a lot of water to pass under the bridge yet before it's bailiffs at the door.


----------



## stoxclimber (30 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> Why didn't you transfer them to Jim or David while you had the chance ?
> 
> In any case there's a lot of water to pass under the bridge yet before it's bailiffs at the door.




I don't think there's ever going to be bailiffs at the door since he's joking.

Saw an article in the Australian today saying BCSCB could essentially also be $0.001, might be interesting buying at that price.


----------



## sails (30 April 2009)

itsonlymoney said:


> Darn it....i knew I forgot to pay that bill today! Brisconn sent me a nice little reminder with a handy bpay option highlighted! As if I am going to bpay $670000 dollars by close of business.....I wonder do they take layby!!!




Hang on a minute - you were the first one to offer a rescue to the mums and dads on this site  

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/search.php?searchid=1936872

I agree with stoxclimber - you don't seem terribly concerned...


----------



## itsonlymoney (30 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> Why didn't you transfer them to Jim or David while you had the chance ?
> 
> In any case there's a lot of water to pass under the bridge yet before it's bailiffs at the door.




ASI sent me a letter offering to take them off my hands if i paid them $6700 dollars.......I always knew that Nick Bolton was shifty....if I had half a business brain I would have taken all the shares I could possibly get and I wouldn't have sold out behind peoples backs....trust me....I would have loved to wind the company up! There is nothing like helping out fellow Australians and sticking it to conmen and merchants alike!


----------



## Enzyme (30 April 2009)

Trevor Rowe's wife is among the defaulting unitholders:

Chairman's wife yet to pay second Briscon instalment


----------



## MeToo (30 April 2009)

This is not good.  Briscon investor may loose home.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25407656-5001024,00.html?from=public_rss


----------



## Macquack (30 April 2009)

*Tardy BrisCon unitholders to be sent default notices*
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25406002-643,00.html



> Mr Bolton, whose Australian Style Investments retains 1.3 million units, also paid the second instalment on his personal holding of 1000 units.
> 
> Asked why, Mr Bolton said: "What we are doing and why we are doing it is all part of our strategy, and I'm not going to comment on that."
> 
> "We will make up our mind later on how we deal with ASI's units."




Bolton must have got a kick out of his "15 minutes of fame" and wants it to continue.

Why he would keep any shares at all after exercising his sham "put option" is beyond me.

I hope this punt by Bolton backfires on him, could not happen to a nicer weasel.


----------



## yttrium (30 April 2009)

Macquack

I'm less concerned with the sideshows than the main feat of making a project pay when it is costing over 75% more per kilometre than the chunnel (using a retail price index). An even bigger feat would be to justify why the project is so expensive.

Sideshows come and go. Multi billion dollar collapses have more lasting consequences.


----------



## itsonlymoney (30 April 2009)

sails said:


> Hang on a minute - you were the first one to offer a rescue to the mums and dads on this site
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/search.php?searchid=1936872
> 
> I agree with stoxclimber - you don't seem terribly concerned...




Hi there...I was and had no takers!!....it was interesting as I most certainly would not have done what Nick the Bolter did! It just seems that people follow the weazel and look where he led them!! Please don't be confused...all of my comments about bpaying etc are heavily sarcastic!!! Hope that clears confusion!!


----------



## drsmith (1 May 2009)

itsonlymoney said:


> Hi there...I was and had no takers!!....it was interesting as I most certainly would not have done what Nick the Bolter did! It just seems that people follow the weazel and look where he led them!! Please don't be confused...all of my comments about bpaying etc are heavily sarcastic!!! Hope that clears confusion!!



That though still leaves the question of how you're going to deal with the instalment liability or have you, like stoxclimber, formed the view that the dam will burst prior to it being enforced.


----------



## drsmith (2 May 2009)

stoxclimber said:


> I don't think there's ever going to be bailiffs at the door since he's joking.
> 
> Saw an article in the Australian today saying BCSCB could essentially also be $0.001, might be interesting buying at that price.



Macquarie's taken a writedown of around $260m to $280m on Brisconnections. I'm not sure specifically what it relates to other than $20m from it's holding that it dumped last year.

The instalment payments have also turned up $288m short. No suprises there.

With regard to the trading price of BCSCB there will only be a handful of unitholders (assuming those who have not paid the instalment from BCSCA can't trade) when it resumes on May 7 so there may be no buyers or sellers initially.

I'm also of the view that this will not come to bailiffs at the door and have hinted so in past posts.


----------



## drsmith (6 May 2009)

drsmith said:


> With regard to the trading price of BCSCB there will only be a handful of unitholders (assuming those who have not paid the instalment from BCSCA can't trade) when it resumes on May 7 so there may be no buyers or sellers initially.



Looking at today's announcement re-Top 20 Shareholders And Investor Spread there are about 4.6 million BCSCB units outside the top three "Macquarie Friendly" instos.


----------



## Struzball (7 May 2009)

> Troubled toll road builder BrisConnections has made a shaky return to the Australian Securities Exchange.
> 
> The second instalment of the units opened at $1 per security this morning.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/07/2563646.htm?section=business

I can't find it, what is it trading as? I'd assume it would be BCSCB but that doesn't seem to work.


----------



## normy (7 May 2009)

Jim & David did great favor to many Mum & Dad who somehow got suck in by the rapid falling BCSCA price, I am sure many Mum & Dad quietly saying THANK YOU...whatever motive Jim & David had, it really does not matter as long as Mum & Dad's obligation is now NIL.

I somehow is hoping Jim will eventually win his claim, regardless of his pass misadventures....at least he is honestly giving it a go.  And so far Jim is definitely not betraying anyone like Bolton (who hopefully will get his days one day).

Regardless of the outcome, I still wish the Airport Link will eventually get build within budget and time...it is after all an essential infrastructure that is needed soon rather than later. Someone has to build it, if it is not Bligh's government (probably takes as long as Snowy Mountain project with 10-20x cost blowout) then why not Brisconnection (it will be on target if the sideshow does not affect the builders).

By the way, what happen if you own some BCSCA shares and it is taken private.  I am certainly very interested if that means I will maintain some kind of shareholding ....https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif


----------



## jumala (7 May 2009)

normy said:


> Jim & David did great favor to many Mum & Dad who somehow got suck in by the rapid falling BCSCA price, I am sure many Mum & Dad quietly saying THANK YOU...whatever motive Jim & David had, it really does not matter as long as Mum & Dad's obligation is now NIL.
> 
> I somehow is hoping Jim will eventually win his claim, regardless of his pass misadventures....at least he is honestly giving it a go.  And so far Jim is definitely not betraying anyone like Bolton (who hopefully will get his days one day).
> 
> ...




hei normi/METOO feel sory to mum and dud, maby yur unkel jimmi eksplain yur annser,no? appears youre still liable if you went with davo


----------



## Julia (7 May 2009)

jumala said:


> ? appears youre still liable if you went with davo



Can you expand on this, please?
You seem to be suggesting those who transferred their shares to David Barrow are still liable for the $1 payment?   

Some time ago I did ask about this to both Jim and David.  Neither replied.


----------



## jumala (7 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Can you expand on this, please?
> You seem to be suggesting those who transferred their shares to David Barrow are still liable for the $1 payment?
> 
> Some time ago I did ask about this to both Jim and David.  Neither replied.




davo jab the saviour had 0.5%, claimed transfers 5%,,,, asx???


----------



## drsmith (8 May 2009)

Looking at the top 20 shareholder list for BCSCB it appears that David (JAB_Charity) has not coughed up the $1 second instalment for too many (if any) of his 0.5%+ BCSCA units.


----------



## normy (8 May 2009)

jumala said:


> hei normi/METOO feel sory to mum and dud, maby yur unkel jimmi eksplain yur annser,no? appears youre still liable if you went with davo




Enough already the confusion....stop spreading fear unless you intention is real.

Anyway, can anybody offers some insight into what happen if you are holding shares when the company decides to go private?  Anyone?


----------



## stoxclimber (8 May 2009)

It depends upon the constitution/trust deed as to whether future installments etc. will be paid. Legally there is little difference between a non-listed company and a listed company in terms of the individual shareholder. You can still sell your shares as you would if it was listed (subject to anything in the constitution on registering transfers etc.), but it would be harder to find a buyer than if its listed obviously, and the pricing wouldn't be as transparent for you.


----------



## Julia (14 May 2009)

drsmith said:


> Looking at the top 20 shareholder list for BCSCB it appears that David (JAB_Charity) has not coughed up the $1 second instalment for too many (if any) of his 0.5%+ BCSCA units.



This has all gone silent.  Does anyone know if the above suggestion is correct, i.e. David Barrow has not paid the installments?  Neither he nor Jim Byrne ever answered my question about nil responsibility on those from whom they took the units.


----------



## octain (16 May 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



Sunder said:


> Simple answer is this:
> 
> Set up a $2 shelf company. Process costs about $1000
> 
> ...





LOL I think nick bolton might have read this post.


----------



## Sunder (16 May 2009)

*Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin*



octain said:


> LOL I think nick bolton might have read this post.




Either he had more balls than I did, or better lawyers. Or maybe just a more corrupt conscience. Who knows.

Anyway, I doubt my joke was original or innovative. It didn't take a genius to work out that possibility was there. Just as I said, guts and a corrupt conscience.


----------



## nathanblack (2 June 2009)

any updates on this? are people being persued for money? did JAB and jim make a dime? are the shares value atm?


----------



## drsmith (2 June 2009)

nathanblack said:


> any updates on this? are people being persued for money? did JAB and jim make a dime? are the shares value atm?



I would say no given that defaulting unitholders have been offered the period up until the public auction this Friday to pay the second instalment.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20090522/pdf/31hqglf7ddv8r3.pdf

For JAB and Jim to make a dime directly from the units an auction price above the $1.00 reserve will need to be achieved for the BCSCB units. Based on recent BCSCB sale prices that appears unlikely but the market is very thin. I suspect that the underwriters are hoping to winkle out a few more dollars out of defaulting BCSCA unitholders and perhaps a few fools willing to pay $1.00 at the auction before deciding what to do about the rest. It will be interesting to see if QIC increases it's holding at the $1.00 per unit reserve.

As for Jim's class action that's suffered a significant setback to say the least.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20090602/pdf/31hwltkkw9bx0n.pdf


----------



## drsmith (5 June 2009)

Today's public auction on the defaulted stapled units was, well, err, um, slightly less than successful.


----------



## Gazzer (13 June 2009)

I was in Brisbane yesterday. I have never seen so many new cranes, trucks & concrete pumps in my life. No wonder they need the money from the shareholders.


----------



## Gundini (15 June 2009)

nathanblack said:


> I think Humphrey Bear is only interested in being a silent partner.




After reading through the last 30 pages I needed this!......... Thanks lol 

I still have a few pages to go... Unbelievable debarkle really...

Imagine if Comsec had a confirmation button stating ther are 2 further payments to be made. 

This would make an awesome movie, and I don't know the ending!

Thoughts for those still involved in this saga. Are there any left?


----------



## drsmith (15 June 2009)

I think this Wednesday (June 17) is D-day for the underwriters to cough up on the instalment shortfall.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 June 2009)

drsmith said:


> I think this Wednesday (June 17) is D-day for the underwriters to cough up on the instalment shortfall.




They charged the fees for their awful advice. They can take the (very deserved) imp:


----------



## Julia (19 June 2009)

Apparently the underwriters have duly paid up.
Now I guess we wait to see how diligently Brisconnections chases up the people who defaulted on their payments.




> June 19, 2009  SMH
> 
> Page 1 of 2 Single page view
> 
> ...


----------



## drsmith (19 June 2009)

Julia said:


> Apparently the underwriters have duly paid up.
> Now I guess we wait to see how diligently Brisconnections chases up the people who defaulted on their payments.



They won't get much if they do.

There's only about 6.5m units outside the underwriters, QIC and HSBC so I suspect a mopping up of minority holders and delisting will be on the cards.


----------



## Julia (23 June 2009)

It seems Jim Byrne's promises have failed to reach fruition.  This is quite interesting from "Business Day".



> BrisConnection votes against resolution
> June 22, 2009
> 
> The managers of troubled toll road builder BrisConnections have survived a bid to oust them, as it was revealed excavation costs for the multi-billion dollar Airport Link project will blow out.
> ...


----------



## stoxclimber (24 June 2009)

His case was summarily dismissed as well, the one where he alleged the BCS prospectus was misleading.


----------



## Julia (28 June 2009)

Unbelievably, Jim Byrnes is at it again.  The following is from today's "Sunday Mail".



> Controversial Sydney businessman Jim Byrnes is offering to help defend Brisconnections investors facing legal claims from the company  -  for a fee.
> 
> Mr Byrnes claims to have been able to "arrange for a firm of lawyers and counsel to act to set aside the statutory demands on a no-win, no-fee basis".
> 
> ...




I hope no one falls for this.   What a charlatan the bloke is.


----------



## Enzyme (6 July 2009)

Remember MAFCA - the Multiplex Prime Property Fund - which this thread predicted would become the next Brisconnections?

The old news:  Like Brisconnections, MAFCA is a partially paid security.  This one with 40 cents to pay.  The price had flatlined at $0.001 with no buyers.  Anyone who invested $1,000 at that price has a liability of $400,000, and there were plenty of people trading this penny dreadful until the new rules on buying partilally paid securities came into force after the BCS debarkle.

The new news:  Nick Bolton has come in and brought 6% of MAFCA.  He just brought $16 million shares for $17,000, and got a liability of over $6 million.  link

The last I heard of Bolton, Brisconnections were still chasing him for $1.2 million of outstanding debt for a parcel of shares that he missed transferring.  When it was suggested that MAFCA would be the next Brisconnections I don't think anyone thought it would be _this_ much like BrisConnections.


----------



## JAB_Charity (6 July 2009)

Enzyme said:


> ...The last I heard of Bolton, Brisconnections were still chasing him for $1.2 million of outstanding debt for a parcel of shares that he missed transferring.




Hello Enzyme,

I was sitting near Nick Bolton in the Victorian Supreme Court last week and he looked like a man who was being chased by BrisCon for two claims totaling $1.3m ($100k raise on your estimate) and perhaps contemplating a creeping move on Multiplex.

Regards,
David


----------



## drsmith (7 July 2009)

Enzyme said:


> Remember MAFCA - the Multiplex Prime Property Fund - which this thread predicted would become the next Brisconnections?



Reading the MAFCA June 19 fund update one gets the impression that unitholders are being softened up for an early call on the $0.40 final instalment.

It would be interesting to know whether or not payment of this instalment is underwritten.


----------



## JAB_Charity (7 July 2009)

drsmith said:


> It would be interesting to know whether or not payment of this instalment is underwritten.




Hello Drsmith,

MAFCA instalment is not underwritten.  Responsible Entity (RE) bears the burden of defaulted calls.

See:

PDS Link

Constitution Link


Enzyme, MAFCA-messenger, any insights on how it might play?


Doesn't look like the MAFCA registry has many low value, high volume holders (as inferred from the trading record), unlike BrisCon situation.  That is other than Nicholas Bolton.

Buyers are in the MAFCA market at $0.001 for 20mil units -- but the sellers are not getting out at the moment.

Regards,
David


----------



## JAB_Charity (7 July 2009)

As far as instalment procedures are concerned, BrisCon is an interesting comparison to MAFCA.

(A) The BrisCon Trust Constitutions [see Link and Link for identical article in the Investment and Holding Trusts]

...state in article 4.9(e) that the Manager "*may*" set a reserve price at auction as then set out in sub-articles 4.9(e)(a) and 4.9(e)(b)

...when article 5.7(b) of the Underwriting Agreement states that the Manager "*will*" set a reserve price at auction as then set out in sub-articles 5.7(b)(i) and 5.7(b)(ii). 

(B) The BrisCon Trust Constitutions also

...state in sub-article 4.9(e)(a) that the reserve price at auction will be at a price "*not exceeding*" the amount then set out

...when sub-article 5.7(b)(i) of the Underwriting Agreement states the reserve price at auction will be "*equal to*" the amount then set out.


Note: "may" is not "will"

...and "not exceeding" is not "equal to" -- even though the destination may end up being the same, the possible journeys are many and varied when you are a prospective BCSCA investor looking forward, and relying on the Investment Constitutions in good faith, as to how a Public Auction ought to be reasonably run.


It's also quite a journey to find the UnderWriting Agreeement in the public domain, as it does not appear on the BrisCon home webpage or in any ASX announcement.

Here are some travel directions [in 10 steps]:

Download Pathway
to Underwriting Agreement
from BrisConnections home website


(1) Brisconnections.mht

http://www.brisconnections.com.au/

(2) The Project.mht

http://www.brisconnections.com.au/default.aspx?tabid=55

(3) City North Infrastructure - Mind meets Matter.mht

http://www.citynorthinfrastructure.com.au/

(4) "Click here for more on CNI PROJECTS" button

(5) City North Infrastructure - Airport Link, Northern Busway (Windsor to Kedron) and Airport Roundabout Upgrade.mht

http://www.citynorthinfrastructure.com.au/home/home.html

(6) MEDIA & PUBLICATIONS

http://www.citynorthinfrastructure.com.au/media_and_publications/project_documents.html

(7) Project Documents

(8) Consortium Project Documents

(9) EQUITY DOCUMENTS

(10) DOWNLOAD: Underwriting Agreement - 3,510 Kb

http://www.citynorthinfrastructure....ts/equity_documents/underwritingagreement.pdf

Regards,
David


----------



## JAB_Charity (14 July 2009)

Enzyme said:


> Remember MAFCA - the Multiplex Prime Property Fund - which this thread predicted would become the next Brisconnections?
> 
> ...Nick Bolton has come in and brought 6% of MAFCA.  He just brought $16 million shares for $17,000, and got a liability of over $6 million.  link




Nick Bolton acquired more MAFCA:

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20090707/pdf/31jgf22b4qnztp.pdf

And then yet more:

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20090710/pdf/31jhyh24tcr3zw.pdf

Taking his holdings to 9.31%.


*Enzyme and others -- what is Nicholas Bolton doing?*


The similarities to BrisConnections are not obvious beyond the mere contributing (with-recourse) nature of the coming $0.40 instalment call, on-market trading at $0.001, and perhaps the fact that the holding companies of both units share a freakish family-resembance with respect to their preferred abbreviations:



BRISCONNECTIONS MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD (“*BCMCL*”) (ACN 128 614 291)
as responsible entity for the BrisConnections Investment Trust (ARSN 131 124 813) and the BrisConnections Holding Trust (ARSN 131 125 025)


Brookfield Multiplex Capital Management limited ("*BMCML*") as responsible entity for Multiplex Prime Property Fund (ASX Code: MAFCA)

In short, Nicholas Bolton is playing with his *BCMCL* and *BMCML* (alphabet) soup.  Why would he do that?  And will he make a mess?

Regards,
David


----------



## cuttlefish (18 August 2009)

I would have posted a comment in this thread but apparently it is impossible to make a useful post in less than one hundred characters (pronounced "ONE MILLION CHARACTERS" in Dr Evil style) so I won't bother.

I'd be curious to know what happened here though.


----------



## cuttlefish (19 August 2009)

Ok. I've been reading through the Storm thread.  Apparently we should feel sympathy towards people that borrowed hundreds of thousands of dollars that they had no hope of ever paying back because they had no incomes.  The reason we should feel sympathy is because the banks lent them this money in spite of the fact that they were incapable of ever paying it back, and if the banks were proper responsible corporate citizens they would never have given out such illogical loans.

Well as far as I can see, there is no difference between that situation and the BCS situation (in fact as far as I can tell the BCS situation is far more unscrupulous).

With BCS - people were effectively given a loan without even signing a form.  They didn't have to prove any assets, show any income or even sign a loan application form.  Yet many of the individuals that bought this stock incurred debts of not just a few hundred thousand dollars or even a million dollars but many millions of dollars - just through the simple act of hitting 'confirm' on a buy order for stock.

So if we can have a parliamentary inquiry into why banks lent hundreds of thousands to people who DID have to sign loan application documents, were required to provide income and asset details, and were certainly made aware of the amounts they were borrowing - why is there so little noise in relation to people being able to legally incur debts of multi-millions of dollars without even having to sign a form, show any assets or income statements? 

And why is this thread so quiet - what happened to everybody - did they all manage of offload to JAB or Byrnes?  I saw some poor contractor on TV the other day that had bought some BCS and was now facing the loss of everything - all for the sake of what they thought was a $500 'investment'. 

Or is everything ok - did Macquarie agree to not pursue the debts and let the small investors off the hook?


----------



## cuttlefish (19 August 2009)

And also just a little side note - why was it that the chairman of the company (BCS) was also able to serve as a director of the ASX (the exchange the company BCS is listed on) and also was able to be chairman of the investment fund, QIC which was one of the major shareholders in BCS.


----------



## cuttlefish (19 August 2009)

So the ASX is regulated by ... well pretty much the ASX - its largely "self regulating" - i.e. the ASX is the regulator of companies that list on the ASX but the ASX is itself a company listed on the ASX.    Well that apparently doesn't matter too much, because the chairman of BCS, another company that is listed on the ASX is also a director of the ASX.  

Maybe the CBA chief could get a job as the head of ASIC and then the banks wouldn't have to worry about all these pesky Storm clients or anybody else for that matter.


----------



## prawn_86 (19 August 2009)

I agree Cuttlefish, its a total rort, but once again the boys club will prevail and nothing will be done about it...


----------



## JAB_Charity (19 August 2009)

Hello Cuttlefish,

The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust [JAB] ended up with 5,609,666 BCSCA units by way of donations by 22 July 2009.

Unitholders seemed quite desperate to get out of their BCSCA positions -- it was like the fall of Saigon on that last day of transfer.

We received no management fee or transfer fee for these donations, as that would be improper in our view.

We also did not then meet the 29 April 2009 $1 call on any of the units.


On 9 June 2009 BrisCon served us with a Statutory Demands to pay $5.6m.

We are contesting this in the Federal Court (matter VID486/2009) by way of an application to set aside the Statutory Demands.

The hearing on the substantive issue is set down for 14 Sep 2009 in the Victorian Federal Court.

I have leave of the court to carrying on proceedings as a non-solicitor for the charitable corporation [an unusual situation] until 8 Sep 2009 -- at which time Justice Finkelstein will hear my application for leave to continue carrying on proceedings as a non-solicitor representing a corporation in the Federal Court under Order 4 rule 14 of the Federal Court Rules.

This is a *Test case* of access to justice for an individual to represent a corporation in a superior court of Australia.

Regards,
David


----------



## JAB_Charity (19 August 2009)

On the matter of the *Test case* of an individual to represent a corporation in a superior court of Australia in relation to BrisCon I am reviewing the following authorities [listed by date] for an outline of submission to be filed on or before 1 Sep 2009:


_Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust (ABN 91 975 681 079) v BrisConnections Management Company Ltd (ACN 128 614 291)_ (2009) 71 ACSR 288

_Garage Wholesalers Pty Ltd v Engineering Software Solutions Pty Ltd_ [2009] FCA 361

_Sharples v Australian Electoral Commission_ [2007] FCA 2102

_Silkearl Pty Ltd v Ainsworth Game Technology Ltd_ [2006] FCA 949

_Industrial Mutual Liability Pty Ltd & Ors v International Vineyards Pty Ltd (No 1)_ [2005] SASC 153

_Re Hoffman_ (2004) 51 ACSR 314

_Slack v Bottoms English Solicitors & Ors_ [2003] FCA 1337

_State v Khan_ [2003] FJHC 55

_Checked-Out Pty Ltd v Eagle Eye Inspections Pty Ltd_ [2002] FCA 1002

_Pacific Air Freighters (QLD) Pty Ltd v Toller & Ors_ (2000) 171 ALR 519

_Australian Communications Authority v Viper Communications Pty Ltd (ACN 067 892 308)_ [2000] FCA 982

_The Proprietors – Units Plan No 95/38 & Ors v Jiniess Pty Ltd & Ors_ [2000] NTSC 1

_Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council v Four Seasons Constructions Pty Ltd_ [2000] WASC 178

_Termi-Mesh Australia Pty Ltd v Josu Manufacturing Pty Ltd_ [1999] FCA 1241

_Floods of Queensferry Ltd, David Charles Flood v Shand Constructions Ltd & Ors_ (1994) ORB 826

_ACT General Cleaning Co Pty Ltd v Naoum_ (1996) 67 FCR 361

_VN International Video Pty Ltd v West End HK TVB Video & Ors_ (1996) 14 ACLC 1308

_Grimwaide v Meagher & Ors_ [1995] 1 VR 446

_Simto Resources Ltd v Normandy Capital Lit & Ors_ (1993) 10 ACSR 776

_Arbuthnot Leasing International Ltd v Havelet Leasing Ltd_ (1991) 1 All ER 591

_Adampolous v Trans Atlantic Freight Services Pty Ltd & Ors_ (1990) 2 ACSR 591

_Bay Marine Pty Ltd v Clayton Country Properties Pty Ltd_ (1986) 11 ACLR 326

_Peters v Australian Institute of Food Science & Technology Ltd_ (1986) 10 ACLR 547

_Abse v Smith_ [1986] 1 All ER 350

_Molnar Engineering Pty Ltd v Burns_ (1984) 3 FCR 68

_Hubbard Associations of Scientologists International v Anderson and Just (No 2)_ [1972] VR 340

_Alice Springs Abattoirs Pty Ltd v Northern Territory of Australia_ (1966) 111 NTR 9

_Federated Engine-Drivers & Firemen's Association of Australasia v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd_ [1913] HCA 71; (1913) 16 CLR 245


----------



## cuttlefish (19 August 2009)

Cheers for the update David.  I'd say that the efforts of JAB Charity in taking donations of the units has probably helped many people out of an extremely scary and daunting situation - effectively being a life saver for many people I'm sure. The fact that this unusual solution was necessary to stop these people facing litigation and potential bankruptcy for simply purchasing a few hundred dollars of stock is to me a disgrace.

The unfortunate truth is that there are likely still a reasonable number of people that did not become aware of JAB Charity, or were unsure whether to trust taking that route, and thus continued to hold their units after the instalment date, and who are now in the situation of being pursued for all of their wealth and more.   The number of people affected is likely relatively small - not enough to get a 'movement' going or for the community to stand up and take notice - yet these people would still be facing what seems to me to be a nightmare.

Good luck with your ongoing litigation efforts David.


----------



## cuttlefish (19 August 2009)

I also note that my first post in this series above may seem a bit flippant towards the affected Storm clients.   While I'm sure some Storm clients were well aware of the risks they were taking and should have known better I have also read a lot of the submissions to the inquiry and it seems obvious that a lot of individuals trusted Storm to adequately manage their money, and that both Storm and the banks behaved very poorly and unethically in many of those situations.


----------



## stocksontheblock (19 August 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> Ok. I've been reading through the Storm thread.  Apparently we should feel sympathy towards people that borrowed hundreds of thousands of dollars that they had no hope of ever paying back because they had no incomes.  The reason we should feel sympathy is because the banks lent them this money in spite of the fact that they were incapable of ever paying it back, and if the banks were proper responsible corporate citizens they would never have given out such illogical loans.
> 
> Well as far as I can see, there is no difference between that situation and the BCS situation (in fact as far as I can tell the BCS situation is far more unscrupulous).
> 
> ...




There are sum 1800+ posts to this, and I can’t possibly read them all. However, I find the idea of not signing anything to authorise a transaction to be, well honest, somewhat pointless. If I recall you have in other posts on other threads suggested the market should be allowed to work, so how would it function if every transaction had to first be done with a signed piece of paper? You never be able to make a trade.

As for the poor bloke on the TV, I cant comment because I didn’t see it, or know him, yet I am sure he was like many millions of people who thought, wow I can own millions of these shares for only $500 and they just have to go from 0.001 to 0.002 and I double my money - how hard could it be????

I am all for paying taxes to put in place the Idiot Police, yet when do people start taking responsibility for their own actions?

I use commsec, and they ask about 4 times if I want to place the order, so its not like you accidently hit the button and ohhh sh*t I now own them.

Also the common sense part would suggest to me, that there is no one buying, yet everyone is selling, as I did look at them and there was 000's on the sell side for hundreds of millions of shares and no one on the buy. I would have thought that this would be a pretty dam good hint not to buy. Ohhh, and not to forget the daily headlines in almost all newspapers, and the business and finance shows on TV. Even the announcements from BCS said please be aware if you own these it is your responsibility to pay the next instalment.

I do not suggest for a min this has or was handled well, or that the 'funny business' and 'funny handshakes' did not band together to make this an unwinnable position for many, yet to have gotten into the problem in the first place you must have - or SHOULD have - at least read the fine print and been aware of your obligations.


----------



## stocksontheblock (19 August 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> And also just a little side note - why was it that the chairman of the company (BCS) was also able to serve as a director of the ASX (the exchange the company BCS is listed on) and also was able to be chairman of the investment fund, QIC which was one of the major shareholders in BCS.




Because its in Queensland?????? Apart from the ASX, yet who's looking!

(sorry have to put more words in to post the above, this should do it)


----------



## prawn_86 (19 August 2009)

stocksontheblock said:


> at least read the fine print and been aware of your obligations.




While i agree with your sentiment the whole point here is that ordinary people were able to take on mulit million dollar liabilities with just the click of the button and a few hundred dollars down.

If i went to the bank and said "Here's $500, can can i please have a mortage no questions asked?" what do you think their answer would be?


----------



## cuttlefish (19 August 2009)

stocksontheblock said:


> There are sum 1800+ posts to this, and I can’t possibly read them all. However, I find the idea of not signing anything to authorise a transaction to be, well honest, somewhat pointless. If I recall you have in other posts on other threads suggested the market should be allowed to work, so how would it function if every transaction had to first be done with a signed piece of paper? You never be able to make a trade.




Well if you did bother to read the thread you'd see that the counter argument to your point has been presented ad infinitum so not much point going around in circles.   The only way an investor would have known that the product incurred a mandatory liability is to have read the entire PDS in detail.  The product also had a very different set of obligations attached to it when compared to other similarly named historical products (e.g. TLSCA and NL company contributing shares).    Any other investment product that incurs a mandatory liability of this size has a signing page, requires witnessing and has a clearly spelt out description of the exact liability being incurred by the individual.  That did not occur here either in print form or in electronic form.  

Its not about the electronic nature of the transaction, its about the lack of clarity surrounding the attached liability.  Its about why this product continued to be kept available when the price hit low levels, in spite of it being obvious that a minimum $500 parcel would be unaffordable to the vast majority of retail investors.

If it is necessary to go back and sift through the entire Prospectus/PDS for every stock you purchase to make sure there are no hidden time bomb liabilities attached to it because you can't trust the ASX to regulate the types of products it puts on offer in its market that will be far more hindering towards market efficiency and transparency than any requirement for a signature.   

I'm not advocating that a signature be required, I'm advocating that the full and complete individual liability be spelt out as one of the steps in executing the transaction - which it wasn't.


----------



## stocksontheblock (19 August 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> I'm not advocating that a signature be required, I'm advocating that the full and complete individual liability be spelt out as one of the steps in executing the transaction - which it wasn't.




Well I'm not going to bother arguing about whether or not I should read the 1890 odd posts, as it’s irrelevant.

However, if a stock - which if you advocate should be removed, or place on a halt - not sure if you do mean something like this, yet I am assuming this is what you mean by a stock falling to such low levels (price), and therefore incurring such an enormous liability should you purchase them, should be available.

If the stock is to remain available, and it can be purchased via an electronic means yet a signature is not required then how can you regulate this sort of thing?

The only ways I can see are:

1. Halt the stock so it can’t be purchased, yet that would mean no one could get rid of it, if there were any buyers;
2. A signature would be time consuming and doesn’t guarantee that people understand it any more than by a click of the button online;
3. Hold the stock so that it becomes a manual buy and sell where a contract is signed, saying the liability is understood. Like a bank loan, yet who will pay for this?

Any other ways?

Once again it comes back to personal responsibility for me. Sites such as Commsec ask if you understand what you are doing. Do you confirm the prices? Etc. So by clicking the button it is taking that you have read anything available and purchase it with full knowledge. 
As for the example of a bank by prawn_86, I agree, the bank will make you jump through hoops and ensure you can cover your liabilities with your revenue/income. However, as for the fine print they also assume you have gone away, discussed it, read it, and understood it. I guess there is an additional option, to ask the bank manager some more questions, yet isn’t that what financial planners etc are for? Sure they might not be any good, yet your bank might not be either.

I think what BSC has been allowed to get away with is disgusting and possibly verges on being illegal in some respects. However, while - as Cuttlefish said: So the ASX is regulated by ... well pretty much the ASX - its largely "self regulating" - i.e. the ASX is the regulator of companies that list on the ASX but the ASX is itself a company listed on the ASX. Well that apparently doesn't matter too much, because the chairman of BCS, another company that is listed on the ASX is also a director of the ASX. 

Maybe the CBA chief could get a job as the head of ASIC and then the banks wouldn't have to worry about all these pesky Storm clients or anybody else for that matter.

I guess there will be no change if those breaking, bending, or just playing with the rules also regulate them.


----------



## JAB_Charity (19 August 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> Cheers for the update David.  I'd say that the efforts of JAB Charity in taking donations of the units has probably helped many people out of an extremely scary and daunting situation - effectively being a life saver for many people I'm sure.




Thanks for your thoughts Cuttlefish, but in fairness to the truth we have to say that we were actually focused on the long-term value of the BCSCA investment rather than any indirect benefit to unitholders looking for an exit.  This being a similar situation it seems for the value sought by Nicholas Bolton in his maneuvers (which indirectly helped many unitholders looking to exit) and also the actions of Jim Byrnes (again helping many unitholders).

I'm not sure about Jim Byrnes' past but his actions in BrisCon are at times noble, in my opinion.  Some may even say that Jim Byrnes has the complexities of Macbeth, Hamlet, Othello, Iago, Darth Vadar... and others great characters that give the world a dramatic truth.

I'm also not sure of Nick Bolton's laissez-faire (jungle) future -- though I wish him all the best.

Regards,
David


----------



## drsmith (19 August 2009)

Dont forget Mr Bear. IIRC he bailed when Macquarie made it's offer to unitholders with less than 50000 units.



JAB_Charity said:


> I'm also not sure of Nick Bolton's laissez-faire (jungle) future -- though I wish him all the best.



John William's cat has been sighted.


----------



## drsmith (19 August 2009)

On matters more serious I note that a few "quotation of additional securities" notices are dribbling in.

Is this late payers getting issued with BCSCB's ?


----------



## cuttlefish (20 August 2009)

stocksontheblock said:


> Well I'm not going to bother arguing about whether or not I should read the 1890 odd posts, as it’s irrelevant.
> 
> However, if a stock - which if you advocate should be removed, or place on a halt - not sure if you do mean something like this, yet I am assuming this is what you mean by a stock falling to such low levels (price), and therefore incurring such an enormous liability should you purchase them, should be available.
> 
> ...




There's plenty of other ways - this is not a new concept - one way would be to make the investor lodge margin against the future instalment payment - exactly as happens for other highly leveraged and high risk products like written options positions.  This would immediately flag warning bells.

The other way is to simply implement a statement of the full liability being incurred at the time of purchase. Its not rocket science.  

i.e. "click OK to confirm your order for 1,000,000 XYZCA at .1c total cost $1,000 with $1,000,000 additional instalment due and payable on 15th May 2022".

And if the asx and broker systems aren't equipped to handle issuing a statement like this at the time of purchase, then don't make products like this available to retail investors until such time that the systems are capable of it.


----------



## stocksontheblock (20 August 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> i.e. "click OK to confirm your order for 1,000,000 XYZCA at .1c total cost $1,000 with $1,000,000 additional instalment due and payable on 15th May 2022".




Hey, I have got to say I like this option!!! Maybe if people can see the flashing lights warning instead of the 'massive' potential for gains (from their Excel calculations) it might make this sort of 'loss' a little less common amongst novice (maybe not so novice) investors.

I might ask CommSec (where I do my day trading) why they don’t have something like this, and see what comes back.

I wont take credit for the idea , just see what their response is.


----------



## cuttlefish (20 August 2009)

> Hey, I have got to say I like this option!!!




cheers

I suspect the reason its difficult to implement is there's no easily automated way of putting this in place - knowing about the quantitative value and timing of any potential liabilities attached to products would require someone to manually go through the PDS and then code the rules in for each specific product code that has anything like this associated with it.

What would probably be easier for them to implement would be to provide a warning by way of an alert.  From a coding perspective all this would require is for someone to maintain a list of stock codes that arent ordinary FPO and have the software do a check against this list and issue a warning alert where the client acknowledges they've read the PDS before continuing.   This wouldn't spell out the exact liability but it would still at least flag to the client that they are buying something a little out of the ordinary that may have other obligations or liabilities attached. 

i.e.  "This product is not an ordinary fully paid share and may have additional obligations or liabilities attached to it as described in the product disclosure statement. Acknowledge to continue etc."


----------



## cuttlefish (24 August 2009)

Some more on BCS.

http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/finance/brisconn-hunts-investors-20090824-evwn.html



_...The company of 77-year-old Adelaide grandmother Elizabeth Goodwin has been forcibly wound up by BrisConnections after she couldn't pay a $1 million debt..._


I'll also never understand this one:

_...Some have been lucky because Macquarie Bank, one of the underwriters of the BrisConnections float, bought out those who owned fewer than 50,000 units..._

I always thought any offers to purchase ASX stock had to be made equally to all shareholders.  There's all sorts of takeover legislation to prevent discrimination against certain subsets of shareholders and to prevent manipulative practices.   Since why can MQG suddenly randomly decide to make an offer to one group of shareholders but not others based on an arbitrary holding level?

The whole thing is absolutely bizarre.  I'm surprised there aren't holes here that lawyers and regulators couldn't drive a truck through.


----------



## Julia (25 August 2009)

I've only just caught up with this SMH article.

One point they make is why are they pursuing so determinedly these quite small investors when the underwriters have already made up the shortfall?
It would appear that they are not now owed anything at all?

I guess the terms of the deal with the underwriters would have been that every effort had to be made to extract the money owing and if they do wring it out of some investors they will then refund that to Macquarie, Deutsche etc?

Seems peculiar that they are 'in talks' with an investor who owes just $250K

Bizarre is the right word, Cuttlefish.


----------



## stocksontheblock (25 August 2009)

Julia said:


> I've only just caught up with this SMH article.
> 
> One point they make is why are they pursuing so determinedly these quite small investors when the underwriters have already made up the shortfall?
> It would appear that they are not now owed anything at all?
> ...




I guess the one thing MQG doesn’t want is to pi*s off any potential big clients, and so the so called 'mum & dad' investor is an easy target????

Yet what I have found interesting about this whole debacle is the number of off the book transactions between individuals, individuals and business groups, and strange offers being made around the place to 'certain' people. How has this been allowed to go on without anybody even asking the basic question: Please explain what you have done, and why you are not in breach of blah blah?

Seems to be just another one of those 'market' business Mickey mouse events that really puts some very unfavourable light on how our markets are regulated and operated.

I don’t for a minute think that peoples own responsibility should be absolved from any of the transactions they made. They should have read the small print, instead of seeing the potential for big $’s before their eyes. Yet, I was under the impression, silly me, that the market was a level playing field, all transactions had to be open and ‘fair’, all parties had equal weighting, however the con-job that BCS is has pretty much put pay to that notion, hasn’t it?


----------



## steve999 (25 August 2009)

Does anybody know if Trevor Rowe has been forced to buy shares in BrisConnections? I recall there was some requirement that part of his wage had to be used to buy shares?


----------



## drsmith (25 August 2009)

steve999 said:


> Does anybody know if Trevor Rowe has been forced to buy shares in BrisConnections? I recall there was some requirement that part of his wage had to be used to buy shares?



There is but Section 8.2 of the PDS is not overly specific with the detail.

Another partly paid stock with a nominal price has come up with a somewhat imaginative way to try and deal with Nicholas Bolton as a major shareholder.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20090824/pdf/31k8chmwl47ygh.pdf

In short he will have to come up with $10m not to be diluted.


----------



## cuttlefish (25 August 2009)

drsmith said:


> There is but Section 8.2 of the PDS is not overly specific with the detail.
> 
> Another partly paid stock with a nominal price has come up with a somewhat imaginative way to try and deal with Nicholas Bolton as a major shareholder.
> 
> ...




Pretty unclear from reading that exactly what it means ... I hope they're not about to offer big bundles of 'cheap' partially paid units to their existing shareholders.   

I'm hoping what it means is they are offering unit holders a chance to relieve themselves of obligations and get out of their holdings altogether at this price.


----------



## drsmith (25 August 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> I'm hoping what it means is they are offering unit holders a chance to relieve themselves of obligations and get out of their holdings altogether at this price.



That is what it means.

Existing unitholders can either bail out at $0.001, not take up the offer and be left to pay two and a bit cents per unit instead of $0.40 as the final instalment or subscribe for new units under the offer. If they do nothing (second option) they will be horribly diluted but in terms of the final instalment obligation they will largely be out of the poo.

Apart from getting young Nicholas off their back I suspect Brookfield-Multiplex's aim is to privatise the fund. Looking at this I'm suprised the high paid staff of Macquarie and DB didn't consider the same approach.


----------



## Knobby22 (25 August 2009)

drsmith said:


> That is what it means.
> 
> Existing unitholders can either bail out at $0.001, not take up the offer and be left to pay two and a bit cents per unit instead of $0.40 as the final instalment or subscribe for new units under the offer. If they do nothing (second option) they will be horribly diluted but in terms of the final instalment obligation they will largely be out of the poo.
> 
> Apart from getting young Nicholas off their back I suspect Brookfield-Multiplex's aim is to privatise the fund. Looking at this I'm suprised the high paid staff of Macquarie and DB didn't consider the same approach.




The press has mentioned privatisation, so I'm sure the wide boys have considered it. Maybe they are worried about how their name will be damaged and they get so much moolah out of the government.
I'm sure they will be getting fees somewhere!
 Maybe for setting up the privatisation!


----------



## JAB_Charity (27 September 2009)

We have been asked 2 questions:

>>[1] Can you please explain to us the charity's rationale for taking all these BrisCon units off the hands of other investors, and now fighting the fight against BrisCon?

ATO asked us the same question and we answered to their satisfaction -- such that we maintain our Deductible Gift Recepient (DGR) status.

As we said to the ATO: The reasons for acquiring BrisConnections Stapled Units by The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust have been stated publicly and consistently on numerous occasions...

Reasons include:

Long-term view of Brisbane Airport Link is positive, based in part on investment information provided by responsible persons of the BrisConnections Management Company Limited.

Views on the complex dynamics in play before the 29 April 2009 second instalment, where the $1 call could have been potentially met by a market re-evaluation of unit fundamentals (driven by the unique, scarce, highly valuable asset: the long-term 45 year toll road concession).

A surplus could have been realised at the Public Auction of the units, held on 5 June 2009.

The Brisbane Airport Link project was well placed for a Privatisation and re-issue to market.

Market Signals of BrisConnections Value:

(i) On 30 March 2009 Macquarie Group Limited purchased 1,429,332 (8.055%) BCSCA units on-market.

(ii) On 15 April 2009 it was announced on the ASX that Leighton Holdings had paid $4.5m for the 77,400,933 (19.84%) voting rights (only) of Australian Style Investments.

(iii) On 21 April 2009 Macquarie Group Limited offered BCSCA unitholders with up to 50,000 of holdings an opportunity to exit the register by 5pm 4 May 2009 without meeting $2 liabilities.

----------------------

>>[2]...Can you please explain to us the charity's rationale for... now fighting the fight against BrisCon?

There are many reasons some of which we cannot as yet reveal for legal strategy, but as per the public records for VIC Federal Court case VID486/2009 we remonstrated against the blunt instrument of Statutory Demand $5.6m said to be owing to BrisCon by drawing attention to the following points:

(A) The BrisCon Trust Constitutions

...state in article 4.9(e) that the Manager "may" set a reserve price at auction as then set out in sub-articles 4.9(e)(a) and 4.9(e)(b)

...when article 5.7(b) of the Underwriting Agreement states that the Manager "will" set a reserve price at auction as then set out in sub-articles 5.7(b)(i) and 5.7(b)(ii). 

(B) The BrisCon Trust Constitutions also

...state in sub-article 4.9(e)(a) that the reserve price at auction will be at a price "not exceeding" the amount then set out

...when sub-article 5.7(b)(i) of the Underwriting Agreement states the reserve price at auction will be "equal to" the amount then set out.


Note: "may" is not "will"

...and "not exceeding" is not "equal to" -- even though the destination may end up being the same, the possible journeys are many and varied when you are a prospective BCSCA investor looking forward, and relying on the Investment Constitutions in good faith, as to how a Public Auction ought to be reasonably run.

--------------------

More info on the BrisCon Fightback cases are updating on:

http://www.settlemate.net.au/BrisCon/tabid/57/Default.aspx

Regards,
David


----------



## drsmith (27 September 2009)

I have not followed this for a while but I note that the BCSCB unit price has moved from the 50's into the 20's.


----------



## investorpaul (27 September 2009)

drsmith said:


> I have not followed this for a while but I note that the BCSCB unit price has moved from the 50's into the 20's.




I also keep an eye on the price just out of interest (wouldnt want to touch them with a 10 ft pole). 

Unfortunately the lower the price goes the more buyers will have to stump up for the future installment. Because of this recent buyers may be forced to sell on market at a lower price that their buy price. This could create another downward spiral.


----------



## drsmith (27 September 2009)

investorpaul said:


> Unfortunately the lower the price goes the more buyers will have to stump up for the future installment. Because of this recent buyers may be forced to sell on market at a lower price that their buy price. This could create another downward spiral.



There's been a constant flow of Appendix 3B notices on the ASX so that's what could be happening now.


----------



## wonderrman (27 September 2009)

Hello, I am wondering if someone could direct me to where I could find the court documents/minutes of the Bolton V BrisConnections case back in March. They have been posted in the thread somewhere but I cannot find them within the 90 or so pages.
Regards, w.


----------



## cuttlefish (1 October 2009)

JAB_Charity said:


> We have been asked 2 questions:
> 
> >>[1] Can you please explain to us the charity's rationale for taking all these BrisCon units off the hands of other investors, and now fighting the fight against BrisCon?
> 
> ...




David - cheers for the update - it all sounds reasonable to me - but I'm no lawyer!

Good luck with your ongoing endeavours in relation to this.


----------



## drsmith (7 October 2009)

I note today trades at $0.20 and bid/offer is now $0.10/$0.20.

Slowly but surely it's heading for the same place as BCSCA.


----------



## Macca09 (12 October 2009)

wonderrman said:


> Hello, I am wondering if someone could direct me to where I could find the court documents/minutes of the Bolton V BrisConnections case back in March. They have been posted in the thread somewhere but I cannot find them within the 90 or so pages.
> Regards, w.




The judgement can be found at: austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2009/128.html

It is a very interesting read if you have all day ......


----------



## wonderrman (12 October 2009)

Macca09 said:


> The judgement can be found at: austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2009/128.html
> 
> It is a very interesting read if you have all day ......




Yes thank you I found the website about a week again, I pulled up the page. Certainly is very interesting reading through these legal documents.

regards, W.


----------



## nathanblack (17 October 2009)

from yesterdays herald sun, it would appear mum and dads have or will finally be let off the hook. Macquarie and Co have agreed to take up all forfeited shares and drop legal proceedures.

The continue to chase Nick Bolton, via ASI company.


----------



## Julia (17 October 2009)

nathanblack said:


> from yesterdays herald sun, it would appear mum and dads have or will finally be let off the hook. Macquarie and Co have agreed to take up all forfeited shares and drop legal proceedures.
> 
> The continue to chase Nick Bolton, via ASI company.



I wonder what redress will exist for those investors who did pay up on the installment?  It hardly seems fair that their financial situation has been so compromised and others are 'off the hook'.


----------



## nathanblack (17 October 2009)

Thats a very good point Julia. I guess its similar to the many people that would never declare bankrupt out of some kind of pride(right or wrong), even when bankruptcy is the better financial decision.

I would think their is no recourse and it is just the price they pay. an expensive lesson learnt.


----------



## Grey Ghost (21 October 2009)

nathanblack said:


> from yesterdays herald sun, it would appear mum and dads have or will finally be let off the hook. Macquarie and Co have agreed to take up all forfeited shares and drop legal proceedures.
> 
> The continue to chase Nick Bolton, via ASI company.






Julia said:


> I wonder what redress will exist for those investors who did pay up on the installment?  It hardly seems fair that their financial situation has been so compromised and others are 'off the hook'.




Does anyone know if legal action is still being taken against the Julie Anne Barrow Trust aka David Barrow?
Haven't heard too much of it lately.

As an aside I notice the shares in Brisconnections are now at 15c.  I suspect as the time for the second installment gets closer they are likely to come under further pressure.


----------



## investorpaul (21 October 2009)

Grey Ghost said:


> Does anyone know if legal action is still being taken against the Julie Anne Barrow Trust aka David Barrow?
> Haven't heard too much of it lately.
> 
> As an aside I notice the shares in Brisconnections are now at 15c.  I suspect as the time for the second installment gets closer they are likely to come under further pressure.




Ouch 15cents, looks like it heading down the same path as before????

Not good.

If it gets anywhere near 10 cents you are then required to pay $10 for every $1 invested. Not many "mum and dad" investors would have access to that kind of cash in my opinion. I hope this time ASX issue a warning or notice about the stock


----------



## investorpaul (16 November 2009)

investorpaul said:


> Ouch 15cents, looks like it heading down the same path as before????
> 
> Not good.
> 
> If it gets anywhere near 10 cents you are then required to pay $10 for every $1 invested. Not many "mum and dad" investors would have access to that kind of cash in my opinion. I hope this time ASX issue a warning or notice about the stock




Down to 11cents, another death spiral in my opinion. The ASX and ASIC should step in now and suspend trading, that way no more people will get caught out.

Very hard to see a way forward until the final $1 is paid out.


----------



## drsmith (3 December 2009)

Now down to $0.01 with two buyers for a total of 2 million at $0.001.

Hopefully this time the underwriters will have the common sense to offer all remaining minority shareholders a way out without having to cough up the final instalment.


----------



## JAB_Charity (12 January 2010)

ASX Circular re Third and Final Instalment has been released 11 Jan 2010:

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20100111/pdf/31n3wnxdthsbcq.pdf

And it appears that trading on a deferred settlement basis (from 15 Jan 2010) will be allowed for the BCSCB units, unlike the suspension of BCSCA units:

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20090406/pdf/31gyckr2bn6gkz.pdf

--------------------------------------------------

In my view, there are compelling reasons for acquiring BCSCB units, including:

(1) Long-term view of Brisbane Airport Link is positive, based in part on investment information provided by responsible persons of the BrisConnections Management Company Limited such as recent Broker and Investor Forum Presentations, on which I and companies associated with me have relied:

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20091127/pdf/31mczwxzsbhx47.pdf

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20091130/pdf/31mf0ptcfbm8gx.pdf

(2) There are complex dynamics in play before the 29 Jan 2010 final instalment, including such scenarios as:

(a) the $1 call could be potentially met by a market re-evaluation of unit fundamentals (driven by the unique, scarce, highly valuable asset: the long-term 45 year toll road concession)​
(b) a surplus could be realised at a Public Auction of the units to be held in or around March 2010​
(c) the Brisbane Airport Link project is well placed for a Privatisation and re-issue to market​
(d) Market Signals of BrisConnections Value:​
(i) On 30 March 2009 Macquarie Group Limited purchased 1,429,332 (8.055%) BCSCA units on-market.​
(ii) On 15 April 2009 it was announced on the ASX that Leighton Holdings had paid $4.5m for the 77,400,933 (19.84%) voting rights (only) of Australian Style Investments.​
(iii) On 21 April 2009 Macquarie Group Limited offered BCSCA unitholders with up to 50,000 of holdings an opportunity to exit the register by 5pm 4 May 2009 without meeting $2 liabilities.​
--------------------------------------------------

As well as relying on the public announcements of BrisConnections management as to the positive value of the BrisConnections Stapled units, I also rely on:

(A) the BrisCon Trust Constitutions, which among other things:

(a) state in article 4.9(a) that a Defaulted Unit (together with the defaulted Stapled Units) "shall" be sold by the Manager or its agent​
(b) state in article 4.9(e) that the Manager "may" set a reserve price at auction as then set out in sub-articles 4.9(e)(a) and 4.9(e)(b)​
(c) state in sub-article 4.9(e)(a) that the reserve price at auction will be at a price "not exceeding" the amount then set out in that sub-article 4.9(e)(a)​
(B) the Underwriting Agreement, which among other things:

(a) states in article 5.7 that BrisCon "must" conduct a public auction of the Defaulted Units​
(b) states under the articles of section 7 that the underwriters "must" pay to the BrisCon an amount equal to any Final Call shortfall on Defaulted Units (of the second call of the third and final instalment), even though such a payment is not actually a Loan in my view, and in any event Defaulted Units will be transferred by the Transfer Date to the underwriters on or around 29 July 2010​
--------------------------------------------------

DISCLOSURE

I, David Barrow, have been acquiring significant BCSCB units (although always less than 5% of units on issue) on and off-market since 7 May 2009 in the price range $0.001 to $1.000

The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust, of which I am a director of the corporate trustee for this charity, now only holds 20 BrisConnections Stapled units -- whereas the unit holdings as at 29 April 2009 were 5,609,666.


----------



## JAB_Charity (15 January 2010)

BrisCon has resumed trading 15 Jan 2010 deferred settlement with no further instalment to pay for the buyers.

New ASX code is *BCS*.


At time of post there are buyers for 1,524,000 units stacked up on the bid side of the market depth -- but there are no sellers.

It's the opposite of the Nicholas Bolton era when the sellers were stacked up on the sell side but there were no buyers.


Current situation could be due to restrictions on brokers for sellers to demonstrate that they have met the $1 final call before allowing the trade.

In any case, there is a BrisCon Private Auction alternative:

http://www.settlemate.net.au/PrivateAuction/tabid/60/Default.aspx

--------------------------------------------------

DISCLOSURE

I, David Barrow and my sole-director companies SettleMate Pty Ltd and DefaMate Pty Ltd are holding 1,200,000 BrisCon units

The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust, of which I am a director of the corporate trustee for this charity, now only holds 20 BrisConnections Stapled units -- whereas the unit holdings as at 29 April 2009 were 5,609,666


----------



## drsmith (15 January 2010)

JAB_Charity said:


> The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust, of which I am a director of the corporate trustee for this charity, now only holds 20 BrisConnections Stapled units -- whereas the unit holdings as at 29 April 2009 were 5,609,666



Did the charity get off the hook in relation to the remainder ? 

It will be interesting to see how the unit price goes now the market knows there's a keen seller of 14% of the tradable units at $1.20.


----------



## JAB_Charity (15 January 2010)

drsmith said:


> Did the charity get off the hook in relation to the remainder ?




Hello Dr Smith,

I was granted Leave by The Honourable Justice Goldberg on 8 September 2009 to commence and carry on proceedings in Federal Court of Australia (matter VID486/2009) for Super Choice Now Pty Ltd as corporate trustee for The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust in defence of BrisConnections statutory demand for $5,609,666 said to be owing.


First time such leave had been granted to a non-solicitor in the history of the Federal Court.  Leave has never been granted in the English Courts.

See: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2009/1026.html


Successful then on 14 September 2009 in setting aside $5,609,666 Statutory Demands with costs awarded against BrisConnections.


Currently chasing BrisConnections to pay legal costs of $28,974 +GST owing.

I may need to chase BrisCon all the way up to the High Court for them to pay up on that front.

Regards, David


----------



## JAB_Charity (16 January 2010)

*"BrisCon arbitrageur David Barrow in share auction"* -- _The Australian_ 16 Jan 2010

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...in-share-auction/story-e6frg8zx-1225820166075

Extract:

_Mr Barrow yesterday took matters into his own hands, trying to offload his liability by launching a private auction to sell his units at a reserve price of $1.20 in the hope of making a quick profit.

...BrisCon communications general manager Patrick Southam said he was "concerned about the legality" of Mr Burrow's auction.

"We are not associated with this offer-proposal in any way," he said. "If payment of the third and final $1 instalment is not received on or before January 29, it is not possible for a BCSCB holder to deal in BrisConnections securities without payment of the outstanding instalment first."_

------------------------------------

The Private Auction is perfectly legal for Sophisticated or Professional Investors [see section 708 of Corporations Act] in three easy steps:

http://www.settlemate.net.au/PrivateAuction/tabid/60/Default.aspx

(1) Sophisticated Investor sends Chq A for $1 instalment to BrisCon on Mr Barrow's behalf (cleared by 10 Feb 2010)

(2) Sophisticated Investor sends Chq B to Mr Barrow for excess sale price per unit above $1

(3) BrisConnections fully paid BCS units are issued to Mr Barrow, who immediately transfers ownership of these to Sophisticated Investor on exercise of effective put option.


Three steps.  Nice and easy.  Legal.  BrisCon gets it money.  Investor gets slice of BrisCon infrastructure project.  Mr Barrow and his companies SettleMate Pty Ltd and DefaMate Pty Ltd get a financing fee for ultimately bringing BrisCon and the new Investor together.  Everybody’s happy.

------------------------------------

Why is 10 Feb 2010 the date to send instalment cheque to BrisCon instead of 29 Jan 2010?

Well, Wed 10 Feb 2010 is within 10 days after Notice Failure to Pay Instalment will be issued Mon 1 February 2010 as per article 4.7 of the BrisConnections Constitutions: http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20080730/pdf/31bfg8cbhg5rm7.pdf

If a unitholder pays up the $1 instalment by Thu 11 Feb 2010 BrisCon will take the money and issue the fully paid BCS units.


----------



## Macquack (16 January 2010)

JAB_Charity said:


> In my view, there are *compelling reasons *for acquiring BCSCB units, including:
> 
> 
> (2) There are complex dynamics in play before the 29 Jan 2010 final instalment, including such scenarios as:
> ...



David Barrow, mate you are just bombarding this thread with bull **** by omission. You know, but conveniently fail to explain that in relation to item:

(d)(i) Macquarie Group purchased the units to counter Bolton's attempt to wind up Brisconnections. Macquarie Group did not do this to protect its investment in Brisconnections,  but rather to protect its more profitable position involved in financing the project.

Again, in point: 
(d)(ii) Why dont you explain to the reader that the reason Leighton Holdings paid Bolton $4.5 million was purely to protect their position as constructor of the project.

Item (d)(iii) was just plain public relations damage control by Macquarie Group and at the same time cutting their losses.


----------



## JAB_Charity (16 January 2010)

Hello Macquack,

I believe that all the scenarios are instances (market signals) of value where there is a market price struck and securities or derivate rights of securities are exchanged for $cash for either an equity position in the future cashflows of the units or as you point out for some other strategic value.

Compare this to other corporate leviathans that were wiped out in recent times without any further market trades.  Those leviathans were terminal and so there were no trades.  By contrast, BrisCon in my view is a going concern, fully underwritten in its financing with the interest on the debt hedged to at least 80% and the construction of the massive infrastructure project on track according to BrisCon Management.

So taking a position in BrisCon before and during the listed scenarios and now presently has value in my opinion.

Regards, David


----------



## Sainter (16 January 2010)

Given the last trading price of BCSCB I fear the market feels it has further to fall once the final $1 installment is paid. If they drop below 70c I might think of doing some research on them with a view to buy at some stage. I most certainly will wait and watch for now, though.


----------



## riverred (17 January 2010)

Hi David, I hold a positive view on BCS' mid to long term value. For this reason I bought in at 10c after the second installment fiasco was settled. So, now I'm a shareholder. But I don't regret paying 10c higher than the 0.1c had I bought a mere month later. In the mid to long term investment perspective, what's 10c when the sp target is the par value? Who could have known with certainty about the sp drop anyway? It's only easy with hindsight.

Just two questions for you:
 - Why didn't you place a bid for 5-10c just before BCSCB went into trading suspension? You'd have bought up all those shares on offer then. And it'd have saved you the hassle and costs of this latest buying process.
 - Why would anyone think that those investors who didn't sell their holdings at 0.1 c before trading suspension and who now have to pay the final $1 installment would want to sell at less than $1.001? Some suggest that the sp may fall to 70c. Why would investors choose to suffer a greater but preventable loss just days after trading suspension?

Need to remember that more than 90% of the shares are already locked up in institutional hands; and that MacQ and Deutch hold a combined of 80%.  Some think that the big share dump will happen soon. Others believe that a takeover and restructure is more likely. Doesn't make sense to me that MacQ and Deutch will do a big dump at less than $2 because they will make multi-$M losses then. Highly profitable and shrewd instos don't operate that way. If a restructure is on the cards, then the offer price will have to be reasonable, aka $2 or even $3, perhaps. Surely these instos do not want another bad public image/reputation arising from BCS shares.


----------



## JAB_Charity (17 January 2010)

Hello *riverred*



riverred said:


> Just two questions for you:
> - Why didn't you place a bid for 5-10c just before BCSCB went into trading suspension? You'd have bought up all those shares on offer then. And it'd have saved you the hassle and costs of this latest buying process.




I and my associated companies were pleased to acquire 1.2m units.  There were only 8.4m units in circulation that were not amassed in the 98% held by the big four institutional investors of Macquarie (45.5%) + Deutche (35.4%) + QIC (10.0%) + Capital (7.0%) -- so the units were actually quite scarce on the sell-side and I'm not sure that bids up to 10c would have made much difference on what could have been acquired.  Quite simply, holders do value these units so they have continued to hold them.  As you say was the case with you.



riverred said:


> - Why would anyone think that those investors who didn't sell their holdings at 0.1 c before trading suspension and who now have to pay the final $1 installment would want to sell at less than $1.001? Some suggest that the sp may fall to 70c. Why would investors choose to suffer a greater but preventable loss just days after trading suspension?




Yes -- there were over 1.7m bids on the first day of BCS trading, most of which were less than $1.  Not surprisingly, there were no trades at that level, only trade at $1.30 later in the day.  Those who are holding BrisCon will most likely sell only above $1 as you say.

I'm not sure where a price of 70c might be coming from but I note that on the assumptions set out by BrisCon Management on 8 April 2009 in a Revised Base Case Financial Model that discount rates of between 15% and 25% gave unit valuations in the range $1.10 to $3.05.  BrisCon also made further reference to broker reports with an average fully paid target price of between $1.28 and $1.80.  See "Valuations" section in this link:

http://www.settlemate.net.au/PrivateAuction/tabid/60/Default.aspx


I am now targeting Sophisticated and Professional Investors as defined under section 708 of the Corporations Act:

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Management.nsf/current/bytitle/3B11B1FDA7FE3EF3CA256F7100071C8F

Have a nice aggregated bundle of 1,200,000 units that represents 0.3% ownership of BrisCon – a slice to sit alongside QIC and 3 other big institutions on the BrisCon register.

Note that QIC has already paid $2 per unit for its 10% BrisCon holding, which equates to $77.6m, and QIC will lift this to $116.4m if it pays the 29 Jan 2010 $1 final instalment which seems likely.

So if QIC will pay $3 for BrisCon all up, how much will other Sophisticated and Professional Investors pay?

Will see what expressions of interests arise at a reserve price of $1.20 per unit at a BrisCon Private Auction alternative:

http://www.settlemate.net.au/PrivateAuction/tabid/60/Default.aspx


Regards, David

--------------------------------------------------

DISCLOSURE

I, David Barrow and my sole-director companies SettleMate Pty Ltd and DefaMate Pty Ltd are holding 1,200,000 BrisCon units

The Julie Anne Barrow Charitable Trust, of which I am a director of the corporate trustee for this charity, now only holds 20 BrisConnections Stapled units -- whereas the unit holdings as at 29 April 2009 were 5,609,666


----------



## riverred (17 January 2010)

Thanks, David, for your detailled response and links. Much appreciated.

Just one last question. What are your thoughts regarding the speculation that MacQ & Deutch will not be content with merely holding 80% BCS for the mid to long term, with no div receivable in the near term? It would be quite uncharacteristic for them to allow so much funds to remain idle in this manner.

Thanks again and all the best.


----------



## JAB_Charity (17 January 2010)

riverred said:


> Just one last question. What are your thoughts regarding the speculation that MacQ & Deutch will not be content with merely holding 80% BCS for the mid to long term, with no div receivable in the near term? It would be quite uncharacteristic for them to allow so much funds to remain idle in this manner.




Interesting question.  Speculating in reply, I'd say that in the circumstances Macquarie & Deutsche:

(1) Will pay the final $1 instalment on 29 Jan 2010;

(2) Likely bid $1 or more for defaulted units at any public auction; and

(3) If there is any shortfall from sale of units at auction, will pay that shortfall as underwriters on or around 17 March 2010.

Beyond this, Macquarie & Deutsche know that the project is on track according to BrisCon Management and that revenues from the 45 year concession are expected to flow from opening of the tollway mid-2012, so that looks to be a significant cashflow starting soon enough and for the longterm.  Given this, hold the units?  And/or sell off to other institutions for a fair price given the fundamentals.

Regards, David


----------



## JAB_Charity (1 February 2010)

*In response to BrisCon ASX Announcement today *http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20100201/pdf/31ngwwhd51h9qd.pdf


David C. Barrow and companies associated with Mr Barrow (SettleMate Pty Ltd and DefaMate Pty Ltd) hold 1.2m BrisCon BCSCB units (0.3% of total on issue)


With 99.4% of BCSCB units paying the 29 January 2010 $1 final instalment this leaves 0.6% declining to pay; 50% of these are held by David C. Barrow and assoc companies

Alternative for Sophisticated Investors looking to get a slice of BrisConnections

Private Auction:  http://www.settlemate.net.au/PrivateAuction/tabid/60/Default.aspx


*Inconsistency: Underwriting Arrangement*

There is a fundamental inconsistency between the underwriting arrangement for the final instalment of the BrisConnections units and any claims for a with-recourse liability against unitholders who decline to pay the final instalment.

An issue along these lines was raised in the courts in 2009, but not as yet tested, for the following matters:


VSC 7066/09 FAUSTO IERVESE $500,000

VSC 7067/09 ANNE LOUISE NEWTON $300,000

VSC 7091/09 ROBERT GREGORY STEPHENSON $700,000

VSC 7093/09 SCOTT NORTH-COOMBES $1,000,000

VSC 7096/09 JOE CHEEWA CHANG $500,000

VSC 7377/09 YSCA NOMINEES PTY LTD <YSCA SUPER FUND A/C> $100,000

VSC 8392/09 BHAGWAAN ENTERPRISES PTY LTD $500,000

QSC 7295/09 DALEWON PTY LTD $350,000

Note: VSC = Victorian Supreme Court; QSC = Queensland Supreme Court


Following in the footsteps of the causes of actions pleaded in these previous cases -- in our view, either the unitholder pays the final instalment and there is no underwriter payment; or the underwriter pays the final instalment and there is no liability for the unitholder.

It's as simple as that.  And makes the collection of debts said to be owing unenforceable by BrisCon (as it always was for the second instalment as well).


Further, any amount that an underwriter pays on or around 17 March 2010 is not a 'Loan' (it is full payment) – and in any event there will be no liability for any party on or around 29 July 2010 (6 months after the infamous ‘best endeavours’ imperative expires).

Regards, David


----------



## JAB_Charity (18 March 2010)

*Some Recent Developments:*


8 March 2010 Public Auction in Brisbane of 1.285m "defaulted units".  There are no bids even at the $1 reserve price:

http://asx.com.au/asxpdf/20100308/pdf/31p4gs624kxks0.pdf

Note: BCS units trade at $1.15 (low volume) on the ASX that same day


17 March 2010 Underwriters Macquarie and Deutsche pay $1.275m Third and Final Instalment Shortfall on defaulted units

http://asx.com.au/asxpdf/20100317/pdf/31pb6g0b1x79r0.pdf


1.2m of the 1.285m defaulted units are owned by myself (David C. Barrow) and my associated companies (SettleMate Pty Ltd and DefaMate Pty Ltd).

See coverage in 18 March 2010 Sydney Morning Herald:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/accountant-takes-fight-to-briscon-20100317-qfra.html


Interested people may like to Help Draft Legal Pleadings against BrisConnections.  A WIKI has been set up for this purpose:

http://www.settlemate.net.au/LegalMuse/tabid/68/Default.aspx

http://thebcon.wikia.com


*Possible Causes of Legal Action:*

(1) With Underwriters having paid all the outstanding Instalments on 17 June 2009 and 17 March 2010 there is actually no money owed by unitholders

(2) Breach of Good Faith in Conduct of 8 March 2010 Public Auction

(3) Culture of Bad Faith Generally

(4) Misleading and Deceptive Conduct on how a Public Auction would be conducted

(5) Fraud on the Power conduct that does not protect the best interests of unitholders 


Regards, David

Disclosure on ownership of defaulted units: 788,354 David C. Barrow; 206,970 SettleMate Pty Ltd; 202,970 DefaMate Pty Ltd


----------



## drsmith (18 March 2010)

David,

Can you actually make anything from this now or is it just a question of holding the line and trying to prevent a legal settlement against you ?

In relation to the latter why do you have so many units in your own name ?


----------



## JAB_Charity (18 March 2010)

Hello Dr Smith,



drsmith said:


> David,
> 
> Can you actually make anything from this now or is it just a question of holding the line and trying to prevent a legal settlement against you ?
> 
> In relation to the latter why do you have so many units in your own name ?




In my view, there is still a profit that could be made on the BrisCon holdings of myself and my associated companies.

See this link:

http://www.settlemate.net.au/PrivateAuction/tabid/60/Default.aspx

*How Can Units still be for Sale following 8 March 2010 Public Auction?*

Follows BrisConnections previous debt-collection practice where the following entities were allowed to pay their Second Instalments months after the 5 June 2009 Public Auction and still retain title to those units:


NSW Supreme Court 3866/09 ECLECTIC INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED $250,000

QLD Supreme Court 7302/09  BERPAID PTY LTD  $495,000

Further, in BrisConnections Writs issued to recover the unpaid Second Instalments BrisCon stated:



> IF the plaintiff claims a debt only and you pay that debt, namely [$Amount_Owing], together with [$Total_Interest] for interest compounding monthly in accordance with article 4.7(a) of the Constitutions from 29 April 2009 to [Date_of_Filing] (inclusive) and [$LegalCosts] for legal costs to the plaintiff or its solicitor within the proper time for appearance, this proceeding will come to an end. Notwithstanding the payment, you may have the costs taxed by the court.



I note that on 8 March 2010 BCS units traded on ASX at $1.15 (on low volume) shortly after Public Auction closed with no bids even though there was a reserve price of $1.00 at the Public Auction.

At time of writing BCS units have a bid-ask spread on the ASX of $1.16 bid to $1.30 ask.


That all said, in our view, the conduct of BrisConnections and _The Australian_ newspaper have harmed the potential profit from the Private Auction of our BCSCB units -- a topic on which it would be best for me to make no further comment at this time as litigation on this front is pending.


And yet further:

http://thebcon.wikia.com/wiki/TheBCon_Wiki#Seeking_a_Court_Declaration_.28taking_fight_to_BrisCon.29

*Seeking a Court Declaration (taking fight to BrisCon):*


May help to *unscramble the eggs* for companies liquidated for non-payment of the Second Instalment
Could also *give certainty* to unitholders that otherwise might still be pursued (up to further 6 years) for the Second Instalment on a "case-by-case basis"


A special Legal Pleadings WIKI has been set up for anonymous posts if people would like to kick around some ideas:

http://thebcon.wikia.com/wiki/TheBCon_Wiki

http://thebcon.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:TheBCon_Wiki

Please Note: a link back to Aussie Stock Forums is included on this site:

http://thebcon.wikia.com/wiki/Relevant_Documents#Aussie_Stock_Forums

-------------------------------------

*What are the consequences of having so many (788,354) BrisCon "defaulted units" in my own name?*

Well, the practicalities stemming from this situation is that I will be able to commence and/or defend legal proceedings in an unfettered way as a litigant in person -- which is a fundamental right under section 78 of the _Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)_:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ja1903112/s78.html

"In every Court exercising federal jurisdiction the parties may appear personally or by such barristers or solicitors as by this Act or the laws and rules regulating the practice of those Courts respectively are permitted to appear therein."

-------------------------------------

Regards, David

Disclosure on ownership of defaulted units: 788,354 David C. Barrow; 206,970 SettleMate Pty Ltd; 202,970 DefaMate Pty Ltd


----------



## skc (12 November 2012)

Looks like BCS is joining RCY in the Toll Road quarters of corporate heavan.



> "As previously advised, BrisConnections is reviewing cost and revenue options, and has retained advisers to undertake a review of likely traffic levels in the light of current information," read the statement.
> 
> "Brisconnections notes there is significant uncertainty regarding the process and outcome of such formal negotiations.
> 
> "As a result, Brisconnections is formally seeking a voluntary suspension of its securities from the ASX."




http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...rport-link-tunne/story-fnbdkrr9-1226514654552

They actually warned about this process a few weeks ago and if people didn't sell then (albeit at wide spreads) they are probably never see value for their shares again. Hopefully there are not many retail holders still holding this due to the debacle from those partially paid shares.


----------



## Julia (13 November 2012)

Elizabeth Knight's summary:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/fools-suffering-as-long-hard-road-exacts-its-toll-20121112-298cq.html


----------

