GTP - Great Southern Plantations

The above is correct.

The potential owners would need permission from the RE if they even wished to enter the properties.

The only "possible" scenario that might put the plantation investments at risk is if they do not harvest within the lease terms (11 years from memory). These blue gums don't grow much after the 10 year mark so there is no commercial sense in keeping them in the ground any longer.

I can't see any real reason "commercial" reason why scheme investors would want to purchase the land unless they could buy it a good price which, lets face it, is a real possibility.

Again what needs to be considered is that although individuals own identifiable woodlots when distribution occurs it is based on your proportional interest in the project.

I believe that determining who is RE is more important than owning the land from a security perspective. The RE is determined by a normal resolution. Controlling the RE will lock in investors security and owning the land will only add some comfort and at the right price some additional financial benefits.

drsmith said:

If the above is correct then why would MIS investors need to buy the land to protect their investment ?

Click to expand...

Besides security of the current investments it also allows investors to get the second crop from the coppice for zero rather than paying another $3000 to someone. Or selling such rights to someone else.

Of course any of that would depend on setting up a co-op or other such structure. Difficult perhaps but if you've got a lot already invested then isn't it worth investigating?

Apart from forming co-operatives now to buy land that in effect we really should hold the leases for, my belief is now is the time to get vocal. it's one thing sitting around here planning ideas that potentially could be too grand to get off the ground, it's another to get out and badger each and every ear that we can to have our voice heard. I'd happily be part of a co-operative, but then again committees and large groups are hard to handle - ego gets in the way and that takes us back to where we started.

It is cathartic to get all that has happened out on paper, for another the power of a million voices is strong. Or perhaps the power of 45000 voices is strong.

I have no idea if it will do any good but I have just emailed Tony Burke, the MP that the administrators are briefing on the company's situation. I have also sent this email to the Sydney Morning Herald Editor. I have spilled my guts on who advised me to buy these investments, along with sharing my reason for buying into this investment scheme. I have explained that for someone with my knowledge, I do my best, but then must also trust the advice and support to this advice provided by Great Southern, my accountant, my financial adviser, ASIC and the ATO for ratifying these schemes.

Compared to many of you I have lost little, to me though I have lost a lot. My cows converted to shares which a worth jack considering the directors gave themselves bulk lots of shares a month or two ago. My 2007 trees are probably still sitting in pots. Maybe I did go into this for tax breaks as well as investment reasons, but you know that was how it was sold to me.

If there is a time to broadcast our message of disillusionment, then it is now. While the Great Southern debacle is still newsworthy, every journo worth his salt will be looking for a new angle, we have a chance of putting our collective stance forward and maybe somebody will listen, perhaps even publish a report to show we were duped.

shadow makes some very good points.

wooduk.... i think you are ontot a winner here but its really to early to tell at this stage if its the rigt things to do. it all depends on what the aministrators decide to do. we cant gear up for a fight if we dont have anyone to fight with.

the administrators and creditors may decide to avoid legal aciton in the future and play by the rules.

they might just decide to sell the management rigths to someone, in which case we are ok. land leased by GTP could be a problem but those trees will just be cleared and money disbured to relevant MIS owners. but its a mess because the leased lanfd might contain trees that need to be cleared not now but in 4 years time.

co-operatives are compicated as someone pointed out... they require golssy brochuers etc. the best bet is to open a company. PTY LTD and run it like a dictatorship. one CEO makes the decisions. this company has to manage the trees thats it.

it doesnt really matter who owns the land so long as the lease is valid. i mean if i rent my house out and i go bankrupt ad a bank takes my house .. what happens to the perosn living in the house......as i far as i know the renter stays there for the duration of the lease.

if land becomes available at bargain prices then go ahead and buy as much of it as you can.. in a cooperative, individual company or otherwise.

slim pickins said:

.....i mean if i rent my house out and i go bankrupt ad a bank takes my house .. what happens to the perosn living in the house......as i far as i know the renter stays there for the duration of the lease......

Click to expand...

Nope. The new owner of the house, ie the bank, can kick the tenant out - usually 10 days notice is given - even if the tenant is not behind with the rent. Happens all the time.

See following Links - mainly relates to NSW but similar situations apply in the other States and Territories

http://sylviahale.org.au/news/greens-move-to-protect-tenants-when-landlord-defaults

http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/A...ancy/ftr39movingoutinformationforrenters.html

Judd said:

Nope. The new owner of the house, ie the bank, can kick the tenant out - usually 10 days notice is given - even if the tenant is not behind with the rent. Happens all the time.

See following Links - mainly relates to NSW but similar situations apply in the other States and Territories

http://sylviahale.org.au/news/greens-move-to-protect-tenants-when-landlord-defaults

http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/A...ancy/ftr39movingoutinformationforrenters.html

Click to expand...

well well.... it does seem like the lease is terminated. oh dear..... its game over im afraid. looks like there might be massive tree fire sale. they'll probably cut all the trees down and sell them or give them to us. they will have to give us our trees but what we will do with them is another matter.

those unable to store or claim their trees are finished. oh dear.....

it could be the case that everyone affected may have to pay tax for the years that they were able to claim the deductions. this could bankrupt a lot of people.

we might have a chance if we are credtors... btu i doubt it... we are unsecured creditors and we'll get nothing.

someone please correct me if i am worng here!

slim pickins said:

it could be the case that everyone affected may have to pay tax for the years that they were able to claim the deductions. this could bankrupt a lot of people.



someone please correct me if i am worng here!

Click to expand...

I don't believe for a moment that you would have to pay tax for the years that deductions were claimed. It was, as far as I know, a legitimate scheme at the time and it would be beyond any reason to take a retrospective approach to any changed legislation.

Good luck to all of you. I'm really sorry this has happened.
I owned shares for quite some time a few years back when everything was going well, but don't know much about the tree etc investments.

well if the market is going to be flooded with woodchip this year.... what impact does that have on woodchip futures?

should we short woodchip futures? does anyone sell woodchip futures?

thats probably the only way to make money on this.

i've jsut had that sinking feeling when you know you have been checkmated.

the first thing the creditors will do is get of of the trees to make the land available for sale.

we need somone to represent our intersets and organise the cutting, collection and sale of trees.

we need someone who can buy the trees. a paper or paper tissue manufacturer? a wholesaler? somehting can be salaveged out of this.... but not much. 25% of the original investment if we're lucky.

we have to approach the administrator to organise this.... otherwise pray for a firestorm to sweep across all of GTP owned land in the next week.

I really feel for the investors in the schemes if this little number holds true (an extract from today's Australian concerning Bendigo and Adelaide Bank.) Nasty, nasty situation.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25542964-5012439,00.html

It said the loans were full recourse to each individual borrower. What it didn't spell out was that the loans are secured by woodlots, and if it can't get all of its money through a sale of the plantation trees or woodlots, it faces the messy and risky task of having to chase down each investor and get them to repay their loans individually. In some cases, this could mean the bank going after their homes.

Click to expand...

slim pickins said:

i've jsut had that sinking feeling when you know you have been checkmated.

the first thing the creditors will do is get of of the trees to make the land available for sale.

we need somone to represent our intersets and organise the cutting, collection and sale of trees.

we need someone who can buy the trees. a paper or paper tissue manufacturer? a wholesaler? somehting can be salaveged out of this.... but not much. 25% of the original investment if we're lucky.

we have to approach the administrator to organise this.... otherwise pray for a firestorm to sweep across all of GTP owned land in the next week.

Click to expand...

Does anyone have a link for the podcast from the creditors meeting today? I had to leave the webcast at 12:30pm - there were questions starting to be asked (from creditors) that talked about some of the items mentioned above. (I think, but cant confirm as I need to find a podcast)...

http://www.thomson-webcast.net/au/d...ad&portal_id=4a17ed2d93bb1731ad32f13eff5cfdce

FYI

Cheers

Hi,

I have $90,000 in the 2006&2007 beef, $18,000 in 2005 trees, and $23,000 in Diversified olives 2007.

All funded by GS (now Bendigo) with $125,000 odd still owing.

My repayments will go P&I in November 2009 where my repayments will go up to $4,300 per month.

And no prospect of any cash or debt relief from anyone.

Where's our bail out from Kevin Rudd people!

Nice1

Did anyone attend the first creditors meeting? I watched the webcast (well most of it, missed the first little bit but will log in later this afternoon and catch up) and thought there were some very astute questions asked.

The link if anyone else wants to watch the webcast is http://www.thomson-webcast.net/au/d...ad&portal_id=4a17ed2d93bb1731ad32f13eff5cfdce

Hi there,

I attended the Creditors meeting today.

Very disappointed with the turn out. Way more people attended the Timbercorp meeting thna the GS meeting.

The Administrators for GS are far more professional than those of TIM.

Still there are alot of unanswered questions. The Admin did however state that it is the R/E that is in Recievership and not the individual projects. Each project will be looked at individually on its merits. I firmly believe that a good number of these projects should be okay....barring some financial contribution from the growers to fund a new R/E.

There howere still exists a real concern that the Admin should not be acting as the R/E in this matter. They clearly do not have the growers best interest at heart (as per TIM case). This in my veiw is a clear conflict of interest and needs to be dealt with.

I am advocating that all investors write/fax/email the Receivers pointing out this conflict of interest and tell them that they must resolve the conflict before taking any further action. Also advise them that you will hold them personally responsible for any losses incurred as a grower due to this conflict.

then

Write/fax/email A.S.I.C. pointing out that the Receivers have a conflict of interest and that A.S.I.C. must take immediate steps to resolve the conflict & protect Growers interests.

then

Write/fax/email the Administrators reminding them that they must be totally mindful of Growers interests & that they must take all steps to ensure that returns to Growers are maximized & that they will be held personally responsible if they don’t.

When contacting the Receivers & Administrators show the Grower number that was allocated for the first investment: Gxxxxx. If you don’t know it phone Great Southern on 1800 258 348, & ask them to provide it. (They are still there to provide the investor services.)

I am also currently putting together a list of questions to the Reciever to address. Some of these questions include:

the status of the Maintenace Reserve Funds on each project which includes amounts held, on which projects and how can these funds be accessed?

I have a series of other questions, but if you would like me to add any to my list i am happy to do so and i will share the responses with you all.

Shadow.

The lease can not be terminated that easily. There is nothing to be worried about from the schemes in this respect. There is plenty of precendce to comfirm this (Primal Yield for instance)

Like I mentioned before the key to security is to determine who the RE is. This can be achieved by a vote of scheme members with a 50% majority. If you are a member of a scheme they have to provide you a list of other members if you request one.

anyone get any information on the web site being set up for the MIS investors. Out of 43000 investors, if we can bring enough together, at $100.00 per head won't take long to have a good fighting fund. Then need to find a sharp legal rep

slim pickins said:

well well.... it does seem like the lease is terminated.

Click to expand...

The examples were for residential leases, are agricultural leases different? Its one thing to end a lease for a flat but surely it must be different for a farmer who leases land and plants crops that take time to reach harvest. Could you really kick him out near harvest and seize the crop, and therefore his investment, without him having some recourse?

Forenth said:

The examples were for residential leases, are agricultural leases different? Its one thing to end a lease for a flat but surely it must be different for a farmer who leases land and plants crops that take time to reach harvest. Could you really kick him out near harvest and seize the crop, and therefore his investment, without him having some recourse?

Click to expand...

There has been alot of talk about the ownership factor in relation to the Lease & Management Agreements that Growers hold.

It is my understanding that the Leases or Sub leases are what has been called Perpetuity Leases - that is they expire when the crop matures. I believe that this is not a fixed period.

The other aspect that i think people have forgoten is that if GS owned the land it leased it to the growers - it was paying itslef an annual lease rental offset by the 5.5% net harvest proceeds at the end of the project. In the case where land was leased from a Farmer, GS issued Sub leases to the Growers. GS maintained the lease payments to the farmer and offset this for a 5.5% Net harvest proceeds return.

If GS is not around to pay the leases...then who will pay it? This has in my view the potential to trigger a default under the lease and the land owner gets the lot??

Therefore consideration needs to be given to clarifying these points so growers fully understand the ramifications and implications attached to their investment.

Shadow.

The Shadow said:

There has been alot of talk about the ownership factor in relation to the Lease & Management Agreements that Growers hold.

It is my understanding that the Leases or Sub leases are what has been called Perpetuity Leases - that is they expire when the crop matures. I believe that this is not a fixed period.

The other aspect that i think people have forgoten is that if GS owned the land it leased it to the growers - it was paying itslef an annual lease rental offset by the 5.5% net harvest proceeds at the end of the project. In the case where land was leased from a Farmer, GS issued Sub leases to the Growers. GS maintained the lease payments to the farmer and offset this for a 5.5% Net harvest proceeds return.

If GS is not around to pay the leases...then who will pay it? This has in my view the potential to trigger a default under the lease and the land owner gets the lot??

Therefore consideration needs to be given to clarifying these points so growers fully understand the ramifications and implications attached to their investment.

Shadow.

Click to expand...

ahhhh... let me translate for everyone here.... this in legal language means... "we dont have a clue!"

but jokes aside... we really dont know... it all depends on the agreement they have with the bank and the relavant legistaliton dealing with long term agriculatural leases.

lots of law is common sense. you cant rent a house otu for a dollar to someone and then use the hosue as security as its essentially worthless. so a creditor has to get access to the land.

agriculture is different. but not that different .... crops grow for a few months and they're done. this really is a strange situation. especially since we dont know what the finance agreement looks like. im drawing blank on the legislation as well.

this is the sort of stuff that gets to the high court. is there a provision that protects the growers in case of GTP bankruptcy. if there was would banks have given 800 mill to these fools. probably not. would GTP directrs have had the foresight and good intentions to look after our interests.... ha! i think not.

so i still think we are doomed in absence of more information. if there is no lease protection in place..... then 25% of intital investment at best, is what we'll see. if there is!... she'll be right mate!