GTP - Great Southern Plantations

pucks · 20 May 2009

Hi

this may seem like a really dumb question but i have finance with great southern for the 2006 plantation lot. i still have another 2 yrs of paying this finance off and have already paid 3 yrs of it - since they are going under do i still pay or do i hold off???? i understand that the loan technically is through bendigo bank now so in theory i should still be paying them as they are not the ones going under but i feel a bit pissed off to be paying money for a project that could end up as nothing. even when i rang great southern today they didnt have an answer for me - they just said yeah i suppose you should still be paying it off. anyone else in the same boat and if so what are you doing????

wooduk · 20 May 2009

pucks said:
Hi

this may seem like a really dumb question but i have finance with great southern for the 2006 plantation lot. i still have another 2 yrs of paying this finance off and have already paid 3 yrs of it - since they are going under do i still pay or do i hold off???? i understand that the loan technically is through bendigo bank now so in theory i should still be paying them as they are not the ones going under but i feel a bit pissed off to be paying money for a project that could end up as nothing. even when i rang great southern today they didnt have an answer for me - they just said yeah i suppose you should still be paying it off. anyone else in the same boat and if so what are you doing????

It is not a dumb question and welcome
SPEAKING for myself Iam not paying my loans to Bendigo-Adelaide bank until I get a written reply from them and now the receiver as to what is the status of my investment and I believe but you need to check that under corporate law they can not force you nor intimidate,threaten etc.

check it out for yourself

slim pickins · 20 May 2009

Pucks,

Thats a good question..... as a general rule, i would advise paying off loans on assets that you intend to keep.

if you dont want the trees then i suppose you could fail to pay the loans and they will probably take them off you. unfortunately they can sue you for the money and in the worst case initiate bankrupcy proceedings against you.

you definitely do not want this. but if you can come to agreement with the bank and administrators then go with somehtign you are both happy with.

int he end it comes down to whether you think you will get any money form the trees in the end.

personally i think the chances of gettign more money from the MIS schemes then you paid, is about 70% in your favour.

im really having troubles thinking of ways i could take these assets if i was GTP, administrator, bank or some middle man.

after all, i have spent my life trying to get somehting for nothing and taking other peoples assets and i can tell you its nto that easy takign somehting thats nto yours and getting away with it.

equally though... would i continue to pay off an asset for the next 2 years that has only 70% of breaking even..... hmmmmm tough one.

just remember .... you alone are the only perosn that can relinquish your ownership over YOUR assets. just be warned.... everyone .... absolutely everyone will try to take them from you.... and will give you contless resons why you are better off wouthout your assets.

btu all those people who devalue your assets, will at the same time want those assets for themselves. so ask yourself why!

the onyl way i can see these assets being taken from MIS investors is through inflated management fees, inflated harvesting costs, low market prices.

all of these obstacles can be addressed and rectified. there is no reaosn why MIS investors should suffer the fate of GTP shareholders.

pist'n broke · 20 May 2009

pucks said:
Hi

this may seem like a really dumb question but i have finance with great southern for the 2006 plantation lot. i still have another 2 yrs of paying this finance off and have already paid 3 yrs of it - since they are going under do i still pay or do i hold off???? i understand that the loan technically is through bendigo bank now so in theory i should still be paying them as they are not the ones going under but i feel a bit pissed off to be paying money for a project that could end up as nothing. even when i rang great southern today they didnt have an answer for me - they just said yeah i suppose you should still be paying it off. anyone else in the same boat and if so what are you doing????

Not a dumb question!
Read:
http://gscentral.great-southern.com...ocument&ID=105693&ObjectType=3&ObjectID=11909

According to the administrators we are supposed to continue paying.
I have exactly one more payment to make, so I will probably do just that.
The trees are still there, after all.
Funny they didn't have the answer that is on their website! Incompetence everywhere, GSL typical.

wooduk · 20 May 2009

slim pickins said:
Pucks,

Thats a good question..... as a general rule, i would advise paying off loans on assets that you intend to keep.

if you dont want the trees then i suppose you could fail to pay the loans and they will probably take them off you. unfortunately they can sue you for the money and in the worst case initiate bankrupcy proceedings against you.

personally i think the chances of gettign more money from the MIS schemes then you paid, is about 70% in your favour.

im really having troubles thinking of ways i could take these assets if i was GTP, administrator, bank or some middle man.

equally though... would i continue to pay off an asset for the next 2 years that has only 70% of breaking even..... hmmmmm tough one.

just remember .... you alone are the only perosn that can relinquish your ownership over YOUR assets. just be warned.... everyone .... absolutely everyone will try to take them from you.... and will give you contless resons why you are better off wouthout your assets.

btu all those people who devalue your assets, will at the same time want those assets for themselves. so ask yourself why!

the onyl way i can see these assets being taken from MIS investors is through inflated management fees, inflated harvesting costs, low market prices.

all of these obstacles can be addressed and rectified. there is no reaosn why MIS investors should suffer the fate of GTP shareholders.

I concur as to what Slim says,but I believe taking advantage of a scenario that would involve as a collective group and consolidating investors that want to enhance their investment that also included buying the land and consolidating the co-op on behalf each investor.

This means us managing it,auditing it and in the usual past averaging the returns just like GTP.

The land would have to be strategically selected and at a price that would suit all and sundry.
We collect on the coppings,we collect on the bio mass fuel ,we collect on the structural grade timber that Lignor wants
We keep it in Australian hands,we enjoy future land value increases,we support local communities.

We have a renewable source of income,and any thing that comes outof this is this----------

THAT FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL PUT AN END TO THE FOOD,FOREST,LIVESTOCK AND CROPPING AGRIFOREST SECTOR BEING TREATED LIKE A CHEAP PROSTITUTE THAT IS FIT TO ONLY PILLAGE AND RAPE .

Metaphorically speaking.

Portfolio · 20 May 2009

It looks like the "responsible entity" wasn't actually that responsible.

Seriously though according the FH information letter growers will be deemed creditors in this process meaning you may be able to "offset" your loan (liability) with your rights as a creditor.

Can anyone confirm this?

Forenth · 20 May 2009

wooduk said:
I concur as to what Slim says,but I believe taking advantage of a scenario that would involve as a collective group and consolidating investors that want to enhance their investment that also included buying the land and consolidating the co-op on behalf each investor.

This means us managing it,auditing it and in the usual past averaging the returns just like GTP.

I've had the same thought: If the land under our trees is to be sold in a fire sale then what if investors bought it cheap. After all what farmer will want land covered in trees and have to remove all the stumps?

Pick the best land and when the trees are harvested then the lease ends. The land owners then allow the coppice to grow and NO ONE has to pay GTP another $3000 to reinvest in it.

I acknowledge I don't have the expertise to arrange this but I do see the sense as long as the land price isn't too much and management of the scheme can be set up.

Anyone willing to be a contact point for this? Slim? Wooduk?

The Shadow · 20 May 2009

People,

Unfortunately the sentiment is right but the process is flawed.

Remeber that GS has in excess of 200 farmlets spread across 5 States, with Trees on them ranging from 10 yo to newly planeted (suposedly planted!! I understand that the 2008 Trees have not been planted by GS or TIM and under the new ATO rules which requires 70% of funds to be spent in the first 12 months is required to grant deduction. No trees = No deduction.)

The land which the trees are on is also a mixture of land owned by GS (mortgaged) or leased to farmers (or Tiwi Islanders). Big problem.

A better solution is to lobby the Govt/Admin/Reciever to appoint a new RE with a view to managing the trees to maturity under the same terms as the GS deal. We may however have to consider contributing some small amount of $$ to the new RE to ensure the viability for all and sundry!!

Food for thought?

slim pickins · 20 May 2009

Forenth said:
I've had the same thought: If the land under our trees is to be sold in a fire sale then what if investors bought it cheap. After all what farmer will want land covered in trees and have to remove all the stumps?

Pick the best land and when the trees are harvested then the lease ends. The land owners then allow the coppice to grow and NO ONE has to pay GTP another $3000 to reinvest in it.

I acknowledge I don't have the expertise to arrange this but I do see the sense as long as the land price isn't too much and management of the scheme can be set up.

Anyone willing to be a contact point for this? Slim? Wooduk?

I could run a show like this. the way GTP structured all this, makes it complicated but not impossible to take over as growers.

the first thing we would have to do is get a couple of thousand investors onside. then we would have to break up into groups chonologically, as our common interests arise out of the year we bought into the scheme.

we establish a co-operative, company, not for profit organisation or even some sort of a charity (no tax) that looks after our interests and seeks to buy land with plantings from a particular year. then we negotiate the processing, sale and transport of the wood.

pretty much do what GTP has done, except we do it without trying to make a profit.... i dont think its too difficult.

btu we'll need a thousand people on side or some really really rich perosn with money to burn. thats the only thing holdign us back. our ability to organise and raise funds..... actually.... i think raising funds will be less fo a problem then organising everyone.

i was just reading.. there were 40,000 poeple involved in MIS... half of them took shares and a significant amount had an investment that can be considerd insignificant.... that could leave about 20,000 people to work with...

out of those we need 1000 to make this work... i could get together 20. and egt moeny out of 10 of them.... as you can see it s long road to doing it ourselves.

anyone who wants can send me a message and ill give them my phone number.

ill respond to everyone except for "investor1" he can send me hsi stock reccommendations if he wants

Taltan · 20 May 2009

slim pickins said:
we establish a co-operative, company, not for profit organisation or even some sort of a charity (no tax) that looks after our interests and seeks to buy land with plantings from a particular year. then we negotiate the processing, sale and transport of the wood.

pretty much do what GTP has done, except we do it without trying to make a profit.... i dont think its too difficult.

I think its a nice sentiment but firstly everyone would like a charity (no tax) that looks after their interest. Secondly GTP weren't making a profit, that was the problem the bankers had. I also suspect most MIS investors are time poor - given their need for tax minimisation.

I suspect this will end up in the courts to determine the exact rights/obligations of MIS investors and the new land buyer. I don't know the answer but I suspect the MIS contracts will be important in determining what rights MIS investors have to the land versus what right a new land buyer has to charge exoribant management fees, remove the trees etc.

moreld · 20 May 2009

Re: GTP - Ferrier Hodgson documents

This may have been posted here, but I couldn't see it.
http://www.ferrierhodgson.com/en/Current%20Matters/Corporate%20Recovery%20Matters/Great%20Southern%20Limited.aspx
First meeting 11:00 27 May in Melbourne.
In the above pdf documents (here is direct link to creditors pdf) there is a form for informal proof of debt, filling this in and returning to Ferrier Hodgson gets you a vote at the table.

I will be attending and am happy to act as proxy for any TREES holders.

I hold TREES2 and TREES3 in GTP.

wooduk · 20 May 2009

Taltan said:
I think its a nice sentiment but firstly everyone would like a charity (no tax) that looks after their interest. Secondly GTP weren't making a profit, that was the problem the bankers had. I also suspect most MIS investors are time poor - given their need for tax minimisation.

I suspect this will end up in the courts to determine the exact rights/obligations of MIS investors and the new land buyer. I don't know the answer but I suspect the MIS contracts will be important in determining what rights MIS investors have to the land versus what right a new land buyer has to charge exoribant management fees, remove the trees etc.

Taltan

I generally agree on most of your comments,however to wait and see what the so called FairValue that the liquidator,receiver which one is it? for me I am not prepared to wait.

Already the Bent/bank of Assanine is trumpeting you will keep paying the loans that you had no say in transferring and having a bankrupt director doing it on your behalf let alone a one piece sheet that was signed by Rhode/runner and another from the dixie club bank.

I believe but cannot confirm in the 2008 project for instance that the trees have not been planted and yet the bank calls people who are investors and I reckon are also creditors as of receivership

The receiver and the Bendigo/Adelaide bank need to address this urgently as I indicated to the bank, and that they need to read the Prospectus of each Investor that signed up to the relevant year that GTP agreed on the year the loan taken as in my loans I do have recourse,meaning I can default and they can have the trees,

In the mean time I have stopped auto deductions and they can correspond in writing only so as I can get professional qualified advice under the circumstances.

This is where the receiver must have a moratorium on the loan payments.

At the end of the day these are good investments and to standby and get walked over is B.S.

slim pickins · 20 May 2009

Taltan said:
I think its a nice sentiment but firstly everyone would like a charity (no tax) that looks after their interest. Secondly GTP weren't making a profit, that was the problem the bankers had. I also suspect most MIS investors are time poor - given their need for tax minimisation.

I suspect this will end up in the courts to determine the exact rights/obligations of MIS investors and the new land buyer. I don't know the answer but I suspect the MIS contracts will be important in determining what rights MIS investors have to the land versus what right a new land buyer has to charge exoribant management fees, remove the trees etc.

yes, everyone would like a charity that looks after their own interests.... btu our interests are the same! particularly investors of a particular year.

GTP were not making a profit because of their debt exposure, lavish spending and marketing and exectuive pay.

MIS investors might be time poor but who is time poor to save their million dollar investment.... hmmmmm.... im not! I'll make time. as I've said earlier.... peopel with insignificant investments will not bother anyway and probably have shares already.

the new land manager might try to charge outlandish fees.... yes its possible.. but what serious company would expose themselves to a torts/breach of contract suit worth hundreds of millions. thats enought to sink most companies. especially as they knwo that they get 5% of the profits upon harvesting. there is $500 million worth in trees. thats a lot of moeny for doign very little.

after all how much cost is involved in watching 5 6 year old trees grow when was the last time you went to forest. chances are it grew all by itself without anyone's help.

again if they remove the trees, most of us may have to pay the government lot sof moeny as the deductions may not be valid. which would lead to a court case that will sink the company trying to do so...... so im not too concerned.... it might even be easier to recover moeny from the courts then sell the trees in the open market in a recession.

pucks · 20 May 2009

Received the info from the administrators today - anyone notice the hourly fees they are paying themselves??!!!!! $130 an hour for a junior filer and up to 5 or 600 an hour for the managers. unbelievable!!!!!

slim pickins · 20 May 2009

i saw those fees.... not as bad as i thought.... they are charging posting fees at cost... wow! looks liek they will take a couple of millon the first few weeks to sort it out. not bad for a 800 million debt. but essentially the party is over for the sahreholders like always.

for MIS poeple they said they will assess each project and its "viablitity". I assume this viability is form the point view of the creditors... ie banks, and i cant imagine waiting 5 years for 100 million is worthwile for a bank if only 50% is recoverable and if it will trickle in.

for this reason i predict creditors will choose insolvency and sell everyhting. this means creditors will be getting good money for unencumbered land and getting a pittance for land with trees in it... so there is a possibility of a united group of MIS invesotrs getting some very good land deals in the next 3months.

otheriwse it will go to a new management company and a fee will have to negotiated.

moreld · 21 May 2009

Re: Creditors Voting

I emailed the following question to the administrators today.
Can you please outline the process for voting by creditors on matters while a company, Great Southern in this instance, is in administration.
I am particularly interested in whether a majority of debt holders of each class of debt by number and amount need to agree, as is done in the USA. eg do secured debt holders, unsecured debt holders, preferential debt holders, each need to agree as groups. Or is it simply all creditors as one group and hence only the banks in the case of GTP have any real vote?

If anyone here knows the answer I am very interested. If Australia does not have a US style system that means the banks get to call all the shots, which totally sucks for obvious reasons. If we do have a USA style system then each group of us unsecured creditors need to start working together to ensure the best outcome.

jiml · 21 May 2009

It happened before my time, but is anyone aware whether the shareholders approved the $1.5m non-recourse loans and also the $2m payout to John Young? At the time of the loans (more like gifts) was there any discussion as to why the loans were non-recourse?

wooduk · 21 May 2009

slim pickins said:
yes, everyone would like a charity that looks after their own interests.... btu our interests are the same! particularly investors of a particular year.

MIS investors might be time poor but who is time poor to save their million dollar investment.... hmmmmm.... im not! I'll make time. as I've said earlier.... peopel with insignificant investments will not bother anyway and probably have shares already.

the new land manager might try to charge outlandish fees...... but what serious company would expose themselves to a torts/breach of contract suit worth hundreds of millions. thats enought to sink most companies. especially as they knwo that they get 5% of the profits upon harvesting. there is $500 million worth in trees. thats a lot of moeny for doign very little.

after all how much cost is involved in watching 5 6 year old trees grow when was the last time you went to forest. chances are it grew all by itself without anyone's help.

again if they remove the trees, most of us may have to pay the government lot sof moeny as the deductions may not be valid. which would lead to a court case that will sink the company trying to do so...... so im not too concerned.... it might even be easier to recover moeny from the courts then sell the trees in the open market in a recession.

Slim and fellow tree huggers,spoke to account(toecutter)ant and informed that there is an interest in the concept of a co-op.

Ihave pressed the accountant as far as a thumb nail scratch painting of the structure and how it would accomadate various investors at different stages and locations in Australia where their investment is ?

The overall concept would be accomadate an investor in the collective and that each contributes to the purchase of landsand that a formula would need to applied in the purchase and the returns on the land and the trees are treated in the same way as GTP

Remember this is a concept and not the model that will have flaws and would need a lot of legal eagle and savy book keepiing by an independant auditor,
like KPMG------no!-NO! bad joke

At this point with the interest and enquiries,and taking it away from people who do not care I reckon we are on a better winner and that down the rhode after he is run over we will thank GTP for this

Bugsy · 21 May 2009

I spoke with Bendigo & Adelaide bank yesterday - they plainly refused to listen!! The guy just went on & on about how the loan was payable whatever the circumstances were. My loan started off with Great Southern Finance Ltd, I only received a letter from Bendigo & Adelaide Bank on 30/04/2009 informing about them taking over the loan. I'm sure that's the case with a lot of other people here on the forum.
I was looking at the ATO product ruling.. herez a copy paste link from http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?docid=PRR/PR200839/NAT/ATO/00001#P37
*************************************
Option B - Principal and Interest loans

92. The principal and interest loans offered by Great Southern Finance Pty Ltd and the Preferred Financier include the following features:

·
principal and interest loans with terms of 2, 5, 7 or 10 years;

·
the borrowing includes the GST component of the fee for Establishment Services;

·
equal monthly principal and interest repayments over the term of the loan, commencing on, or about, 31 July 2008;

·
interest rates will be fixed for the term of the loan;

·
a Loan Establishment Fee of 0.5% of the amount borrowed may be charged; and

·
the security for the loan is taken over the Grower's interest under the LMA.
*********************************************************

Doesn't it clearly say in the last line that the loan is secured...
I'm trying to find a copy of my "Geat Southern Renewable fibre Project 2008" Prospectus... can't find it.. Can any1 here help me with that.. I'm sure there will be something in the prospectus about the finance being secured by the Grower's interest..

jiml · 22 May 2009

Interesting know waht is Investor 1's view of a coop, or, did he/she convert his/her holding to shares?

GTP - Great Southern Plantations

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency