GTP - Great Southern Plantations

drsmith · 1 July 2009

Of possible interest to bluegum plantation investors is the price ITC (subsidiary of Elders (formally Futuris)) has secured for the wood to the end of the year.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20090630/pdf/31j9sx9pj579nd.pdf

jiml · 3 July 2009

I notice that evidence given in the senate inquiry indicates that 2 directors jumped ship in 2005 on the basis of 'a lack of disclosure' by GTP and that John Young had sold some $32M worth of shares prior to the announcement of the 'top-up'. Why did they not inform the ASX or the market of the reason for their departure so shareholders and prospective investors could make informed decisions? I also wonder whether, having taken the moral high ground, they showed some foresight and flogged their shares?

jiml · 6 July 2009

Article worth reading in the financial section of today's Australian. A pity this stuff did not come out (at least for me) a couple of years ago.

bv2726 · 6 July 2009

jiml said:
Article worth reading in the financial section of today's Australian. A pity this stuff did not come out (at least for me) a couple of years ago.

Same here - I read an article slamming MIS stuff from The Intelligent Investor - in the July of the year i had just finished my last investment in Trees, Olives and Cattle. After that I decided to "not do any more and see how it goes".

Well, I have seen how it goes - or should i I say, I have seen how it went.

Here is a link to the above mentioned article.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25736266-5018010,00.html

jiml · 10 July 2009

For those of you who have not seen it, there is an interesting if not disturbing article in July 8th edition of the West Australian (business section) which can be accessed from their website, sorry I cannot provide the url as beyond my teckno competancy.

Forenth · 10 July 2009

jiml said:
For those of you who have not seen it, there is an interesting if not disturbing article in July 8th edition of the West Australian (business section) which can be accessed from their website, sorry I cannot provide the url as beyond my teckno competancy.

Here it is:

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuId=32&ContentID=153532

Doesn't say much more than the letter from McGrath Nicol.

KJL · 10 July 2009

david001 - good luck with that, the more of us kick up a fuss the better in my opinion.

Although for me, the 'where's the money coming from' question is not that important (although I appreciate it is for many investors) - rather I don't want to keep paying the bank for the next 10 yrs when I know I'm going to get nothing, barring a miracle.

jiml - I'm not saying the banks are at fault. Rather, I think GTP are at fault because they misled investors. Legally, if we relied on representations which were not correct when we entered into the loan, then that means the loan is 'tainted'. The Bank just happened to not do enough due diligence when it bought that loan, or income stream, or whatever it did (Bendigo are being coy about the scenario and my lawyer hasn't been able to get an answer from them). But that shouldn't mean I have to foot the bill just because the bank's a bigger gorilla than me.

I've used this analogy before, but imagine this scenario: let's say three months back, I order a brand new GM car. GM tells me it's in great financial shape, and I borrow $50k from GM to finance it. The car's not yet been delivered, but GM sells my loan to BigBank, then goes into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In the wash, it comes out that GM didn't tell me the truth about its financial position.

Has BigBank done anything wrong here? No, not really, other than not doing sufficient due diligence - and even then it also might have been given incorrect information. But do I think I should keep paying my loan to BigBank under these circumstances? Hell, no!

I don't see much difference between this made up scenario and what's gone on with GTP, unless someone can distinguish my examples.

KJL

Wagyu · 10 July 2009

Upon going through all the GTP paperwork for the FY, I noticed that much of the paperwork addressed lacks the date at the top of the page and is also nowhere to be found anywhere in the letter.

This probably should have rang SOME alarm bells??? Stinking $2 company.

Should have kept my cows in the backyard. Mooooooo

Messenger · 10 July 2009

FYI.

A submission to the present Parliamentary Inquiry into the Agribusiness MIS.

Abstract:

... It is found that the total cost of a forestry MIS project in its 10-year lifespan grossly surpassed the revenue. Funds collected from new investors were appropriated to support earlier projects and to pay dividends, tax and etc., leaving little to the new project itself. Thus the business was fraudulent and designed to fail. The business model also resembled a Ponzi scheme being described in the ASIC website. Suggestions for legislative or regulatory changes are proposed at the end of the paper. The major culprits of this fraud should be brought to justice. Attached at the end of the paper is a past letter addressed to ASIC two years ago in which the author contended that the MIS business of Great Southern was fraudulent and cautioned of a multi-billion dollar collapse...

The full text is at the Parliament website

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/MIS/submissions.htm

with submission number 37. Or please click on

https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissio....aspx?id=42ccb955-e25f-4353-807e-0c3f4dce4bb5

Wagyu · 10 July 2009

KJL said:
david001 - good luck with that, the more of us kick up a fuss the better in my opinion.

Although for me, the 'where's the money coming from' question is not that important (although I appreciate it is for many investors) - rather I don't want to keep paying the bank for the next 10 yrs when I know I'm going to get nothing, barring a miracle.

jiml - I'm not saying the banks are at fault. Rather, I think GTP are at fault because they misled investors. Legally, if we relied on representations which were not correct when we entered into the loan, then that means the loan is 'tainted'. The Bank just happened to not do enough due diligence when it bought that loan, or income stream, or whatever it did (Bendigo are being coy about the scenario and my lawyer hasn't been able to get an answer from them). But that shouldn't mean I have to foot the bill just because the bank's a bigger gorilla than me.

I've used this analogy before, but imagine this scenario: let's say three months back, I order a brand new GM car. GM tells me it's in great financial shape, and I borrow $50k from GM to finance it. The car's not yet been delivered, but GM sells my loan to BigBank, then goes into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In the wash, it comes out that GM didn't tell me the truth about its financial position.

Has BigBank done anything wrong here? No, not really, other than not doing sufficient due diligence - and even then it also might have been given incorrect information. But do I think I should keep paying my loan to BigBank under these circumstances? Hell, no!

I don't see much difference between this made up scenario and what's gone on with GTP, unless someone can distinguish my examples.

KJL

KJL

I imagine that you still take delivery of the car. In the situation of GTP investors is;

no cattle,
no shares,
large debt,
and more than likely, the ATO wanting their money back for tax deductions that now technically do not exist.

Maybe "Bigbank" bought the loan at discount? It's been done before. Ha. I'm still looking at lots of paperwork with big numbers not worth a cracker.

Hope you enjoy your new car smell.

jiml · 11 July 2009

KJL, As the marbled fleshed Japanese bovine suggests, if the goods are delivered then the obligation to meet the debt exists. In our case, does it mean if the trees are planted the obligation is met notwithstanding they either die, bulldozed or are repossessed? If the car suffers a serious mechanical failure do you stop repayments to the bank? Buggered if I know but it is worth investigating just in case...

KJL · 11 July 2009

jiml said:
KJL, As the marbled fleshed Japanese bovine suggests, if the goods are delivered then the obligation to meet the debt exists. In our case, does it mean if the trees are planted the obligation is met notwithstanding they either die, bulldozed or are repossessed? If the car suffers a serious mechanical failure do you stop repayments to the bank? Buggered if I know but it is worth investigating just in case...

Yeah jiml, I forgot to mention I assumed that the car (ie the ultimate tree distribution, ongoing vine income etc) would not be delivered. Admittedly, you can take these analogies too far...

I saw an article in the weekend Fin today (by Matthew Drummond, about p15 or so) citing one of the law firms acting for investors (not my law firm) and saying in essence that "if it turns out that there is some problem with the original loans, such as GS did not disclose their true financial position, then Bendigo have a big problem" - which sums up my thoughts in a nutshell.

Wagyu - not sure it's "more than likely" that ATO will want monies back. Punishing people who invest in what the government saw as much needed agricultural schemes would be harsh indeed, even for the ATO. ATO have previously said (although not in this specific case, on which they've to date been silent) words to the effect that if investors could not have reasonably anticipated the scheme's failure at the time of the investment then any tax claimed would not seek to be reclaimed by ATO. If you're interested I can probably dig out the ruling.

And I've only ever had one new car, and the new car smell lasted about 10 minutes 'til it was superceded...

Wagyu · 11 July 2009

KJL said:
Yeah jiml, I forgot to mention I assumed that the car (ie the ultimate tree distribution, ongoing vine income etc) would not be delivered. Admittedly, you can take these analogies too far...

I saw an article in the weekend Fin today (by Matthew Drummond, about p15 or so) citing one of the law firms acting for investors (not my law firm) and saying in essence that "if it turns out that there is some problem with the original loans, such as GS did not disclose their true financial position, then Bendigo have a big problem" - which sums up my thoughts in a nutshell.

Wagyu - not sure it's "more than likely" that ATO will want monies back. Punishing people who invest in what the government saw as much needed agricultural schemes would be harsh indeed, even for the ATO. ATO have previously said (although not in this specific case, on which they've to date been silent) words to the effect that if investors could not have reasonably anticipated the scheme's failure at the time of the investment then any tax claimed would not seek to be reclaimed by ATO. If you're interested I can probably dig out the ruling.

And I've only ever had one new car, and the new car smell lasted about 10 minutes 'til it was superceded...

KJL,

yes you are more than likely to be right re ATO, but GTP is still stinging my back pocket and I am taking a rather negative view holistically speaking. Thankyou for your offer for the ruling, I sometimes allow the smoke billowing from my ears to cloud my vision.

(still fuming) arrgh.

deep breath....ahhhh

Messenger · 13 July 2009

Wooduk,

You have a PM (Private Message). Please go and have a look.

Best regards.

Messenger

The Shadow · 14 July 2009

Hi All,

SAVE MY TREES!!!!!

Your involvement is required.

We need you to register your interest on the website immediately,

http://www.savemytrees.com.au/

remoteone · 15 July 2009

I joined the savemytrees site which has been established by the PIS group and has other FA's as sponsors.

remoteone · 15 July 2009

My quandary is that I will be a hypocrite if i now register with slatergordon expressing my interest in a suit against PIS.

remoteone · 15 July 2009

My current FA is with the PIS group, so on one hand I want savemytrees to assist my with lobbies to Timber Corp and GS Receivers and pertitions to Government MPs
On the other hand, given my understanding that suing a company that it in Receivership is near on useless, I see that PIS are the next target in line.
No surprise that PIS have set up the savemytrees site. It might help to influence investors to decide not to join a class action.

Checkmate again !

SDE · 15 July 2009

remoteone said:
My current FA is with the PIS group, so on one hand I want savemytrees to assist my with lobbies to Timber Corp and GS Receivers and pertitions to Government MPs
On the other hand, given my understanding that suing a company that it in Receivership is near on useless, I see that PIS are the next target in line.
No surprise that PIS have set up the savemytrees site. It might help to influence investors to decide not to join a class action.

Checkmate again !

I'm with you remote1

Would treat PIS's involvement with savemytrees with much cynasism.

Definitely no point chasing GS as there will be no money left there.

PIS is the much better option.

remoteone · 15 July 2009

I haven't checked if this is posted elsewhere, but I've been wondering weather I could apply to become the "Responsible Entity" to take on management of my own Tree Plantation Projects (that I've purchased and have loans for).
Whats the criteria and who do I speak to.?
The receivers would not be happy with the idea but I wonder if there is some legal channel I can go thru?

GTP - Great Southern Plantations

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency