Ben,

Well, maybe the wording is technically \"owned\" by Wayne and Stuart, but
Deloittes MUST have had a big part to play in drafting it and, at the very
least, checking it for \"watertightness\" and suitability. So they can\'t walk
away from this - as the insolvency experts, they\'re paid (handsomely) to get
the best possible outcome. I guess the issue is: for whom? <sigh>

Yokki.


At Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:05:53 +1100, you wrote:
>Yokki;
>
>Actually the wording is Waynes & Sturat Powel\'s. The DOCA is not
>\"created\" by the Adminsitrators. If you were concerned before you must
>be very worried now!
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Ben C
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: jfmika@... [mailto:jfmika@...]
>Sent: Monday, 24 February 2003 22:41
>To: otmushrooms@...
>Subject: RE: [otmushrooms] OT GEERS Update 22-2-2003
>
>
>Paul,
>
>Thanks for keeping us all informed - I appreciate your time and effort.
>
>I\\\'m a little surprised, however, to hear that the Deloittes lawyers are
>spending so much time worrying about the DOCA wording. Surely the
>wording (THEIR wording) is a \\\"done deal\\\", and the only interpretation
>that matters now (for us, anyway) is the DEWR view.
>
>Have DEWR asked Deloittes for some sort of assurances about re-payment?
>How will poring over the DOCA make any difference? Surely either
>Deloittes promise to pay DEWR or they won\\\'t. Are Deloittes considering
>re-wording the DOCA (and, I guess, getting re-approval by creditors) if
>the wording is insufficient for DEWR?
>
>It also worries me (upsets me?) that the avowed \\\"experts\\\" in
>insolvency... ( and the ones who promised to look after our interests),
>are now having so much trouble with their own DOCA.
>
>Yokki.
>
>
>At Sat, 22 Feb 2003 13:51:33 +1100, you wrote:
>>The Deloitte solicitors are seeking access to the DOCA from the \\\"Green
>
>>(as Deed of Administrator of ACN 050 541 047 Ltd (Subject to a Deed of
>>Company
>>Arrangement)) v Commonwealth, Unreported, Supreme Court of NSW, 3 July
>2002.
>>\\\". They want to compare it to the OT DOCA to understand if the wording
>to
>>the OT DOCA places it in the same situation it terms of subrogation
>rights
>>for DEWR.
>>
>>regards
>>
>>Paul
>>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members of
>this group) can read this message in the archives.
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members of this
group) can read this message in the archives.
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]