Have a look at
http://www.ppbnsw.com/new/view_person.asp?PAGEID=2&STATEID=2&PERSONID=39
Turns out Steve Parbery had advised John Anderson and Peter Costello prior
to Mudgee.

Parbery was originally appointed administrator and was shortly after
appointed as receiver after his application to the court. So it appears he
is both receiver and administator.

http://www.aar.com.au/pubs/pdf/insol/foinsep01.pdf confirms that a company
can be in voluntary administration and receivership at the same time.
http://www.hunthunt.com.au/hunthunt/Publications/MoneyHuntMar00.pdf talks of
a company in receivership which was discharged when it went into
administration, resulting in a DoCA.

Hence it would seem that a DoCA is a possible outcome for Mudgee Abattoir
(although unlikely - since I doubt the current owners - the state
govt/council - want to keep it going under their control).

> For those who haven't delved into the Public File Archives, there is a
> document that Theo wrote, called GEERS.doc, which states that it is
> conceivable that under a Liquidation scenario, it is open to sell the
> business as a going concern.

Contrary to the advice of the administrators.

----- Original Message -----
From: "nick4mony" <no_reply@...>
To: <otmushrooms@...>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 2:44 PM
Subject: [otmushrooms] Re: It's not what you know, it's who you know. Mudgee
abattoir update.


> --- In otmushrooms@..., Elizabeth Fullerton
> <laslig@o...> wrote:
> > well, at least the system works. that system, anyway.
>
> ... which is a Receivership.
>
> > we simply chose the wrong system.
>
> ... being a Voluntary Administration and a Deed of Company Arrangement.
>
> The real question is whether a receivership is open to the same abuses
> as a VA/DoCA. Other questions:
> 1. Is there scope in a receivership for a Deed of Company Arrangement?
> 2. Is there scope to disturb the priorities of creditors in a
> receivership (or a DoCA derived from receivership)?
>
> For those who haven't delved into the Public File Archives, there is a
> document that Theo wrote, called GEERS.doc, which states that it is
> conceivable that under a Liquidation scenario, it is open to sell the
> business as a going concern.
>
> The advantage of this kind of process is that the liquidation is a
> very controlled process, and while there might be arguments of
> commercial judgement (eg choosing a buyer and a price), the
> distribution of money is very predictable, and GEERS is sure to pay
> those workers who are let go.
>
> The disadvantage is that (in most cases) the Directors lose the business.
>
> Nick Bishop
> -----
> Compulsory super was rejected 90:10 in a New Zealand referendum in 1996
> -oOo-
>
>
>
> Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members of
this group) can read this message in the archives.
>
> Useful links:
> OT Mushrooms home page (previous messages)
> http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
> Public file archives (Files for download)
> http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/index.htm
>
> 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/
>
>
>