I have voted for Gunns - there seems to be no alternative. (Liquidation/winding up of the schemes??)
Anyone heard/had an offer for their Olives?
GTP - Great Southern Plantations
- Thread starter Rafa
- Start date
I have voted for Gunns - there seems to be no alternative. (Liquidation/winding up of the schemes??)
Anyone heard/had an offer for their Olives?
yes apparently olives are doing well and some keen interest in them according to gs hotline BUT who knows the whole thing is a dogs breakfast Any one heard about the slater gordon thing or are they just hot air Also someone tell me who they can sue great southern obviously has no money
Preacher, a couple of the directors are being sued by Brian Burke et al for some $52M based upon the notion that inducements offered to some of the cattle drove owners, but not all, to exchange droves for shares was not kosha and indeed illegal. Unless you are able to snare John Young, which is unlikely, you are right, the company is broke...
Well, to answer my own question - GTP posted (released to the ASX) the answer. Basically all Olives schemes are to be wound up, as there is no replacement entity. (I.e. No one else wants the Olives so they are a waste of time and money).
Now, does anyone know if a scheme is wound up whether any of the investors get anything? Land value? $1?
- Joined
- 5 March 2008
- Posts
- 951
- Reactions
- 141
As owners of the trees, you should be able to go and dig them up yourself and remove them from the property, especially the younger trees.
good luck trying to do it though..
brty
Not so, unfortunately.
Just got my letter from MN regarding the 2005 Organic Olives project.
Apparently the land on which the olive trees grow is owned by Great Southern Olive Holdings (in liquidation) and leased to GMSAL (also in liquidation).
GSMAL then leased the land to the mug MIS punter.
Apparently GSOH can terminate the lease to GMSAL because GSMAL haven't performed maintainace, etc.
In these circumstances, the title of the trees passes to GSOH, which is now controlled by the Banks.
Bend over and take it again.
- Joined
- 13 May 2009
- Posts
- 24
- Reactions
- 0
OK - This seems like a fairly active group. I have a large (for me) investment in 2004 trees on terminable (but not terminated) land. 
Anyway it seems to me that Gunns is the ONLY option we have left YES the only option.
Yet Proxies as of Monday are 20 odd per cent.
Come on everyone - if you haven't sent it in SEND IT if you know someone get them to SEND IT. Speak to your accountant and lawyers and get there clients sending it.
IT IS YOUR MONEY and INVESTMENT.
I don't care what you vote (although it seems obvious to me) but lets not let the great Australian tradition of APATHY knock us out before we even get to the gate!!
Herein ends the rant!
Anyway it seems to me that Gunns is the ONLY option we have left
YES the only option.Yet Proxies as of Monday are 20 odd per cent.
Come on everyone - if you haven't sent it in SEND IT if you know someone get them to SEND IT. Speak to your accountant and lawyers and get there clients sending it.
IT IS YOUR MONEY and INVESTMENT.
I don't care what you vote (although it seems obvious to me) but lets not let the great Australian tradition of APATHY knock us out before we even get to the gate!!
Herein ends the rant!
OK - This seems like a fairly active group. I have a large (for me) investment in 2004 trees on terminable (but not terminated) land.
Under the Gunns proposal, those growers with woodlots on leased land where the lease is terminated, get NOTHING.
For these growers, a vote for the Gunns proposal is a vote to make sure you get nothing.
BEWARE.
- Joined
- 13 May 2009
- Posts
- 24
- Reactions
- 0
Yes I agree - As i read it - that is the result.
BUT
There is no other proposal that I know of. Therefore not voting for Gunns is a guarantee you will get nothing isn't it?
The only benefit is that everyone goes down with you.
Don't get me wrong this sucks, and if there was something else (like Black) then I would be all for it. But I don't see we have a choice here!
Correct me if I am wrong because I would rather have choice!
BUT
There is no other proposal that I know of. Therefore not voting for Gunns is a guarantee you will get nothing isn't it?
The only benefit is that everyone goes down with you.
Don't get me wrong this sucks, and if there was something else (like Black) then I would be all for it. But I don't see we have a choice here!
Correct me if I am wrong because I would rather have choice!
I have trees on terminated (ex leased) and bought land as well. I voted for gunns for both...at least having Gunns looking after whats left of my trees means I have a "chance" of getting "some" money back...one day...maybe.
If not, its over. (Like my Olives as I found out yesterday).
bv2726
If your woodlots are on leased land where the leases have been terminated, then the Gunns proposal means that it is all over for you.
If you vote yes to the Gunns proposal, you are voting to get nothing. End of story.
If you vote no, you will not be any worse off, and might get something should, in the very unlikely event, another proposal emerge.
Definitely won't get anything (Vote yes for the Gunns proposal) or unlikely to get anything (Vote no to the Gunns proposal).
Your choice.
- Joined
- 13 May 2009
- Posts
- 24
- Reactions
- 0
Yes all true
BUT I would say "very unlikely" that another proposal will pop up or we would have heard about it. Therefore you are very likely to get nothing. The only thing likely to be achieved is dragging down 10's of thousands of people into the same hole you find yourself in (through no fault of your own).
I have an interest in a yes vote (full disclosure) I have a quarter chance of getting some money (I may be being optimistic here) but as I said before I don't see another realistic choice!
That's the way I was thinking. I had Olives, Cattle and Trees on leased land and Trees on unleased land.
Cattle - Stolen and I sold the shares for a paltry amount but got "something".
Olives - gone. Over. Leased land. Gone. Lost.
Trees on leased land - gone anyway (lease has been terminated already).
Trees on unleased land - I can only think to tick Gunns here...and there is a chance (tiny) that I might get some money one day. A hundred bucks? well, thats better than nothing.
The Yes v No argument will be irrelevant if less than 50% of the members vote.
http://fw.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/gunns-still-lacks-votes/1707595.aspx?src=rss
I'm voting NO as probably won't get anything beats definitely won't get anything.
http://fw.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/gunns-still-lacks-votes/1707595.aspx?src=rss
I'm voting NO as probably won't get anything beats definitely won't get anything.
have it on good authority a few directors areheading to jail john young included by the time this all is over i rang gs hotline 2 weeks ago they said the only certanty is olives are safe MATE what a crock i have one last idea we just buy one tree tie directors and ferrier hodgkson and mcrath nichol managment toit cover in honey and RELEASE THE FIRE ANTS YAHOOOOOO
Also being in tas i am outa firewood for next winter do you reckon they would let me have my 250000 back in trees for firewood?
Also being in tas i am outa firewood for next winter do you reckon they would let me have my 250000 back in trees for firewood?
- Joined
- 13 May 2009
- Posts
- 24
- Reactions
- 0
Bendigo made an announcement that they didn't some months ago. VERY naughty if they really did. No doubt ASIC will rip them a new one
- Joined
- 16 February 2009
- Posts
- 23
- Reactions
- 0
Hi preacher, great news! I hope Mr. Butlin is included.
I offer to buy 100 trees out of my own pocket to tie financial advisers to.
As I have more lots on not leased land than on terminated leases, I reluctantly voted yes to Gunns. I do not expect much return though.
- Joined
- 13 May 2009
- Posts
- 24
- Reactions
- 0
VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE
