- Joined
- 28 October 2008
- Posts
- 8,609
- Reactions
- 39
But that is not obvious at all. Not even to the lawyers acting for the underwriters.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.
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?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.
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.
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).
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'.
I have previously been suggesting better prevention and education - not "a great wrong has been done"...
But that is not obvious at all. Not even to the lawyers acting for the underwriters.
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.
Still no answer?
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?
Answer to what?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?