BCS - BrisConnections Unit Trusts

[drsmith]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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.

...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...

...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]

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]

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]

Watchdog investigates: ASIC investigates payment to Bolton

 

[sails]

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