BCS - BrisConnections Unit Trusts

[Steveaus25]

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]

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

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]

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

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]

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]

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

...If I were Mr Springborg I would stay very well away from the whole issue.

I agree too. Definitely not a government issue.

 

[alphaman]

Re: Briscon-using indian steel

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]

Re: Briscon-using indian steel!national disgrace

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]

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]

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]

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

:Worth taking a short on Macquarie?

You can't short MQG or any other financial stock.

 

[investorpaul]

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

You can't short MQG or any other financial stock.

just wait until march 6

 

[Sunder]

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

You can't short MQG or any other financial stock.

Or just use a derivative...

 

[Enzyme]

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

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]

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

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]

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]

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

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?