What was their script?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.
[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
What was their script?
Did they say winding up the trust wouldn't remove the $2 liability?
That was very brave of them, considering the court is being asked to rule on that point:linkTheir 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.
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.
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.
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?
Here Here!!!!!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.
Here is the first report I've found on yesterday's proceedings. Just the fax in debt-laden deed dash
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.
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...........
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
2- the other has the support of a litigation funder.
In the event the company being wound up the units will have intrinsic value(Possibly buying 30-50 cents for less than 0.00001 cents)
In the event of the hedge fund becoming the largest shareholder a recapitalisation of the coy will be sought
The combined holding of all 3 entities including Nick Bolton is sufficient to do either as the loan provisions of the building contract will be in breach if they refuse to pay and the underwriters are seeking to avoid the possibility of that happening.
Trevor Rowe and the Qld Governement have a major problem on their hands and for $800 to secure 20% of the company the risk is small even considering the unpaid amounts on the instalments and the judges ruling on that [on Wednesday].
Sorry, I didn't answer this.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.
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?