GTP - Great Southern Plantations

Johnathon123 said:

Adelaide/Bendigo are denying the acquisition at 38c in the dollar

see: www.crikey.com.au

Will Rayner, Head of Investor Relations, Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited, writes: Re. “Bendigo and Adelaide should come clean on MIS” (yesterday, item 26). In response to your article we make the following points…

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank has lent to more than 8000 individual credit-worthy borrowers who have subsequently invested in Great Southern MIS schemes. We continue to work with our customers to deliver the best outcome for all parties. We are closely monitoring the performance of each loan, and are in the process of contacting each customer to discuss their loan and their options going forwards. As per normal practice, provisions and write-offs are calculated on a loan-by-loan basis. We will continue to manage this portfolio in a similar manner.
While we remain vigilant about the performance of these loans, we are ultimately comfortable with our position, and have not revised our market guidance as a result of these developments.
The statement released to the ASX by Bendigo and Adelaide Bank on May 26, 2009 includes the customers and exposures outlined in the separate announcement by Adelaide Managed Funds.
APRA’s decision not to support the proposed purchase of the Asset Backed Yield trust was in no way related to these issues.
Contrary to recent media reports, neither Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, nor any of its related parties have recently bought any portfolio of loans from Great Southern at a discount (such as the $0.38 cents figure that has been quoted). (bold added)
We would appreciate if these facts could be reported.

Click to expand...

But does not the Bendigo Adelaide blank have a Trust fund that is a subsidary to what was the Adelaide bank as I can not confirm but there was a noise in the earlier media reports that an extra $charge would be iniatated by this other entity of Adelaide Bendigo,,,,needs to be confirmed

Re Bendigo Adelaide Bank.

ASX announcment on

08/04/2009 Company Update and TREES Coupons 4 PDF

This has been changed, it's not what was originally posted. Very strange.

edliw said:

Re Bendigo Adelaide Bank.

ASX announcment on

08/04/2009 Company Update and TREES Coupons 4 PDF

This has been changed, it's not what was originally posted. Very strange.

Click to expand...

I have downloaded and saved this document on 24/04/2009.
Looks exactly identical to the one on the ASX website today.

I downloaded it on 8th April and it looks identical to me as well.
Not sure about ASX releases, but I now in the US that any changes have to be made with amendment filings, which are flagged with an A. Changing announcements is highly unlikely to be allowed.

This will give you a warm fuzzy feeling!,and I know there are advisers out there that don't know of this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Adviser Services
Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 5:27 PM
Subject: GSFM Management Buyout Adviser Teleconference Summary







Great Southern Funds Management Ltd (GSFM) held a teleconference on 29 May 2009 to provide Advisers with an update on the negotiations with the Receivers of Great Southern Limited (GSL), McGrath Nicol, regarding a management buyout of GSFM.



If you were able to attend we hope that it provided you with sufficient information to communicate with your clients. To recap, and for those unable to attend, below is a summary of the points discussed on the conference call.



· As previously advised, the Directors of Great Southern Limited (GSL) placed GSL in Voluntary Administration (VA). Ferrier Hodgson were appointed as Administrators on 16 May 2009.

· GSFM and the entities that it manages remain solvent and are continuing to operate as normal.

· The Receivers have gathered significant information from GSFM over the past week and are now beginning to understand the business. In particular the Receivers are aware of the significant outlays that they will be required to make in the coming months for the Almond Projects;

· The Receivers have advised that they must advertise the GSFM business to comply with their duties under the Corporations Act. The business will be advertised next week and an Information Memorandum prepared immediately;

· A timeline for the sale process is not yet known however GSFM management anticipates it will take between 2 to 3 months;

· GSFM management regard this step as a positive sign that the Receivers are not seeking to wind up the business or the Funds it manages as this process would not realise the maximum value for the financiers. Likewise the Receivers are aware of the consequences of this action for the underlying investors and are keen to maintain the reputation of their clients;

· During this sale process the Funds will all continue to trade. GSFM Directors will closely monitor operations and solvency. Solvency is not expected to be an issue with any of the Funds during this sales process. All Funds and AF06 have sufficient capital to trade during this period;

· RFM RiverBank has a large exposure to GSMAL through the leases over properties at Hillston. GSFM management has made an offer to the Receiver regarding this which would reduce counterparty risk;

· Importantly it does not appear that the business will be wound up. The Receivers are looking to see if the management offer reflects the market price. Management is confident that it does;

· GSFM will send a letter to investors which details how their investment may be affected through the process. A copy of this will be sent to you before it is mailed to your client.

KJL said:

Yep, SDE, a debt is a debt, but not if it's ultimately judged to never have been a valid debt in the first place. For example, if we MIS investors had acted in reliance on representations by GS that were incorrect (eg, projected yields, subsidising existing projects with income from future projects) then that loan may be void ab initio, ie as if it were never entered into.

This is a separate point to the issue of to whom the debt is owed. If it's owed to a liquidator then I'd feel more comfortable telling them to get nicked (in return for my 20yrs of zero return) than I would telling Bendigo had it been validly assigned to them prior to GS's insolvency.

Although your reply to Jonathan's FA made me smile and tells me you know what you're talking about

In short, my position is that there is much to be discovered about this matter, and it may be that all is not as it currently seems.

Click to expand...

Hi KJL

Just got my information bulletin from G&S

You may be right.

One approach suggested by G&S may have loans ex GSF forgiven, even if they have been on sold to BEN. Advice is NOT to default at this stage.

KPMG are also in the firing line for their assistance in Project Transform.

And let's not forget the advisors, without whose help, no one would have been able to invest in any of GS's MIS projects.

So fingers crossed. The MIS investor may get something back after all.

I agree with SDE ... NOT to default.

We have paid 85% of the damn loans off . So now seeking legal advice on next steps.

And some thought it was the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank. Nice work if you can get it.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25594836-601,00.html

Director John Young in Great Southern debt deal

Adele Ferguson and Anthony Klan | June 06, 2009
Article from: The Australian

THE founder and former managing director of the failed $3billion Great Southern agribusiness empire could make millions of dollars from a deal completed weeks before the company was placed into administration.

The Weekend Australian can reveal that John Young, a current director of Great Southern, and his wife Sheila funded a $2 shelf company that purchased a book of loans with a face value of $25million from the group for $9million.

As part of its continuous disclosure obligations, Great Southern informed the ASX on April 8 that it had sold the loans, which had changed hands at a 62 per cent discount to face value.

It would have been more transparent for shareholders had the company revealed in the announcement the identity of the purchaser of the loans or the entity providing finance to the purchaser.

Documents obtained by The Weekend Australian reveal that a $2 shelf company called Javelin Asset Management Pty Ltd was assigned the loans on March 31, the day the company was registered. The directors of Javelin are Robert Charles Gould and Mark Drewett Kendrew, who hold the two $1 shares issued by the company.

On the day Javelin was registered as a company, a fixed and floating charge securing a prospective amount of $10million was lodged over its assets, in favour of a company called JSJA Holdings Pty Ltd, the shares in which are owned by Mr Young and his wife. The charge documents secure a convertible loan agreement between Javelin and JSJA. Such agreements customarily enable all or part of the loan to be converted into shares in the borrower at the option of the lender.

As revealed by The Australian, Mr Young, who founded Great Southern in 1991, was paid a $2.013million "retirement benefit" when he stood down as managing director in February last year. In the year to September, Great Southern reported a $63.8million net loss, a 15 per cent drop in revenue and a 24 per cent fall in managed investment sales to $444million.

Click to expand...

What the ???? Does anyone get it ???

How does one know if our loans were part of this scam ???

The more I read the more I don't want to know. The whole thing is making me sick ...

Anyone looking to sue their financial planner for advice ?

Learningman said:

What the ???? Does anyone get it ???

How does one know if our loans were part of this scam ???

The more I read the more I don't want to know. The whole thing is making me sick ...

Anyone looking to sue their financial planner for advice ?

Click to expand...

My financial planner is in between the crosshairs. Just waiting to get a bit closer before pulling the trigger!

Well at least we know (thanks to the Australian) where the 38 cents fits in. In respect to the sale I would have thought that unless the directors had entered an open bidding process to sell the loans on the open the market as against a deal with a mate they may be liable for failing to meet their fiduciary duty to the shareholders. Further, it would appear a 'management buyout' of GSM is on the cards, fascinating is it not that the people who sent GTP broke may possibly purchase its only viable asset....

New member here...been following thread since early '09...have 6-figure investment in '04 and '05 trees...tipped into this investment by accountant of many years who said "I cannot give financial advice...meet Mr. X financial advisor and he will look after you!"...sales pitch was along the line of triple your money, the paper-less office is a myth, you don't want to chop trees down in the forest do you? Commissions were disclosed but I simply didn't know what was the norm, ie 2%, 3%, 85% commis, 10% didn't ring any warning bells (will forever onwards though!!!)...I have spoken with John Lawrence in Tasmania, and Fred Gulson of Dennis and Co earlier in the year when I first smelt a rat...currently disputing investment in Great Southern through Financial Ombudsman Service for inadequate Statement of Advice among other things, and intentionally witheld direct debit for end of month payment for May...Bendigo called me at work Friday so they work quickly...obtaining legal advice but one would have to question Bendigo's resources to chase 8000-odd people for payments, plus the remainder of the 43 000-odd quoted in the papers...I tend to agree with KJL, if tipped into something based on un-realistic yields (and a Ponzi-like structure) how is the buyer to be aware???...Surely like me, in my line of work, these guys have Professional Indemnity insurance (if you can call these accountants/advisers professional) and lawyers if you can afford them should be used...I flew to Melbourne for the first Creditor's Meeting, very interesting indeed!...I will be asking my lawyer to contact Dennis and Co and discuss in legal-speak where they are at with a Class action...as KJL said, a few hundred bucks might be worth it if the total voice saves us significantly more.
I have PDF's of the '04 and '05 Product Disclosure Statements if anyone needs them...I just thought I would join the Forum...respond in sympathy or flame me...I just thought I had better be in it to win it, or lose it.

david001 said:

I have PDF's of the '04 and '05 Product Disclosure Statements if anyone needs them...I just thought I would join the Forum...respond in sympathy or flame me...I just thought I had better be in it to win it, or lose it.

Click to expand...

Welcome aboard a group of people who in varying degrees are financially screwed.Read prior stuff,even my brain hurtz remembering the itrigue that has got us thus far.

Options?,I am sure there are not too many legally.

At the end of the day,this rort or tort needs to be purged and made retrospective asap


Meantime it does not stimulate me to spend 800 here,260 here,1000 here and for what?, to get a partial judgement

One option to bring this to ahead is everybody hook up and collectively refuse to pay any money to any entity

Thanks Judd for alerting us on the story in the Australian. With each passing day, my hopes for getting our money back diminishes...

Timbercorp shines light on MIS investor protectionRuth Williams
June 8, 2009
Page 1 of 2 Single page view
.REVELATIONS that a Timbercorp company charged with protecting the interests of investors has no money and is "hopelessly insolvent" have thrown the spotlight on how managed investments are regulated, and prompted calls for more protection for investors.

KordaMentha, the administrator of collapsed managed investment scheme operator Timbercorp, this week concluded that Timbercorp Securities, the "responsible entity" for the company's dozens of MIS projects, was insolvent.

Accounts filed with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission show that Timbercorp Securities suffered a drastic dwindling of cash in its last full financial year ”” from $2.15 million in 2007, to just $158,000 by September 30, 2008, although its total reported assets remained almost static. It now has no money, no access to money, and no staff, according to KordaMentha.

Up to 10,000 growers could now lose any claim on their almond and olive Timbercorp investments if the schemes ”” which need more than $300 million to keep operating for another year ”” are wound up.

The Timbercorp situation has highlighted what some argue are deep-seated problems with how managed investments ”” which include agribusiness-based schemes, mortgage trusts, property syndicates and a host of other "pooled" investments ”” are regulated.

On Thursday night, Tony D'Aloisio, chairman of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, explained that the sector ”” estimated to manage about $350 billion worth of investors' funds ”” involved a "high level of self-regulation". MIS products must be registered with ASIC, and the responsible entity must be licensed, but there was no assessment of the "merit" of the offer, he said.

"The basic philosophy behind (MIS regulation), similar to a number of areas, was to leave it to the market with oversight and market conduct supervision from ASIC," Mr D'Aloisio said.

"ASIC's role is that we have functions of licensing REs, and we register the schemes. We don't actually vet or approve it. We are monitoring ongoing disclosure but there's no requirement that product disclosure statements be filed with ASIC."

The current system rests on the role of the so-called "responsible entity" ”” the entity charged with managing the scheme and, importantly, with protecting investors' interests. Under this system, the investment manager ”” Timbercorp for example ”” appoints a responsible entity. Previously, an independent trustee company was charged with acting on behalf of investors ”” a situation that still exists with superannuation and debentures.

"The problem was that (before the laws were changed) investors didn't know who to sue," said Owen Lennie, an associate professor at Melbourne University.

"Should they sue the trustee or the manager? The idea was that it would make these things quicker and easier, but it was also about the big fund managers saying they were too big to need a trustee."

Mr Lennie is assisting financial advisory groups that have been working to protect clients' investments in the wake of Timbercorp's collapse.

"Since 1999, we have had good economic conditions and rising property prices. This is the first time in the economic cycle that this structure has been put to the test and it hasn't worked."

Mr Lennie advocated a return to the trustee system, arguing the use of responsible entities created conflicts of interest. While trustees only had one function, the responsible entity owned the land, operated the scheme and was also supposed to serve investors' interests. Also, as with Timbercorp, the entity was often run by the same people running the parent company. Continued…
If the company collapsed, the administrators were faced with the dual, potentially contradictory role of pursing the best possible returns for creditors, while protecting investors' interests as administrators of the responsible entity.

Ian Ramsay, corporate law professor at Melbourne University, said the laws were changed because trustees were "falling down on the job". He didn't think returning to trustees was the solution ”” but adds that "no one suggests there aren't problems".

He said that one of the most significant problems was that investors in managed investments did not get the same protections as shareholders in companies. "There's all sorts of legal remedies in the Corporations Act that shareholders get that investors in managed investments don't get," he said.

Professor Ramsay said the set-up of the investments was often complex, leading to problems with disclosure. There was often a "blurring of lines" about what exactly the investor was buying.

"Rampant" charging of high commissions, and the "complicating" factor of tax incentives were other issues.

Professor Ramsay said there was "probably a strong argument" to increase the legal protections for investors, and review the regulations.

"This is an area that moves quickly, there has been quite a lot of change," he said. "Given that these are an important part of the investment scene, and because they cover such a broad range of things, I think it's probably time for a systemic review of the protections that are given to investors."

Last week, then corporate law minister Nick Sherry would not be drawn on the issue of responsible entities, saying he would "assess the outcomes" of a parliamentary committee inquiry into agribusiness MIS, chaired by Labor's Bernie Ripoll.

The inquiry's terms of reference include the need for legislative or regulatory change. "We will be looking at all of that," Senator Ripoll said.

Submissions close on June 26.

david001 said:

New member here...been following thread since early '09...have 6-figure investment in '04 and '05 trees...tipped into this investment by accountant of many years who said "I cannot give financial advice...meet Mr. X financial advisor and he will look after you!"...sales pitch was along the line of triple your money, the paper-less office is a myth, you don't want to chop trees down in the forest do you? Commissions were disclosed but I simply didn't know what was the norm, ie 2%, 3%, 85% commis, 10% didn't ring any warning bells (will forever onwards though!!!)...I have spoken with John Lawrence in Tasmania, and Fred Gulson of Dennis and Co earlier in the year when I first smelt a rat...currently disputing investment in Great Southern through Financial Ombudsman Service for inadequate Statement of Advice among other things, and intentionally witheld direct debit for end of month payment for May...Bendigo called me at work Friday so they work quickly...obtaining legal advice but one would have to question Bendigo's resources to chase 8000-odd people for payments, plus the remainder of the 43 000-odd quoted in the papers...I tend to agree with KJL, if tipped into something based on un-realistic yields (and a Ponzi-like structure) how is the buyer to be aware???...Surely like me, in my line of work, these guys have Professional Indemnity insurance (if you can call these accountants/advisers professional) and lawyers if you can afford them should be used...I flew to Melbourne for the first Creditor's Meeting, very interesting indeed!...I will be asking my lawyer to contact Dennis and Co and discuss in legal-speak where they are at with a Class action...as KJL said, a few hundred bucks might be worth it if the total voice saves us significantly more.
I have PDF's of the '04 and '05 Product Disclosure Statements if anyone needs them...I just thought I would join the Forum...respond in sympathy or flame me...I just thought I had better be in it to win it, or lose it.

Click to expand...

I have paid 85% of my close to 7 figure investment with Great Southern. So the question I have is .... "What the heck do I do ????"

keeping paying or try and get my money back ????

Can anyone recommend a good lawyer to seek legal advice ? I am not sure how to move forward given my situation.

What are others doing ????

Portfolio said:

I still don't think GTP will be in the MIS business in 5 years (even timber). Why?
For anyone that watched the 4 corners show GTP have been propping up their returns to growers. However they can only do this for the first plantations as they are really small.

If you read the annual report you will see that the first growers ACTUALLY lost money after 10 years of investing without the top up.

Click to expand...

Read this forum back a few years and you will see some of us predicted this.

What a cruel, cruel joke. Very painful for those who put money into this.

http://business.smh.com.au/business...t-manager-insolvent-report-20090609-c27x.html

Great Southern project manager insolvent: report
Danny John
June 10, 2009

THE corporate offshoot charged with running Great Southern's managed investment schemes is insolvent and has no cash available to complete its forestry and horticulture projects.

Investigations undertaken by McGrathNicol, the receivers of the collapsed timber investment company, have indicated that the responsible entity of the Great Southern group will have to be wound up because of its financial position.

Great Southern Managers Australia (GSMA) is understood to have insufficient reserves and no chance of securing additional funds to continue in its role of managing the group's 45 schemes. GSMA was the body with direct responsibility for the schemes that over the past 10 years raised $2.3 billion from 43,000 investors attracted by the tax advantages of the group's managed investment projects.

But Great Southern's slide into administration last month after running up debts of $600 million has left the group's investor growers facing an uncertain future, especially as GSMA is no longer in a position to support their schemes.

Click to expand...

Check this out:-

http://www.afr.com/home/login.aspx?EDP://20090610000031232548&section=industry-primary_industry


Also great article in the Aust Fin Review on Mr Young and Co. It's right on the money. Their days are numbered..................


Shadow.