There are 8 threads of conversation in this summary

Threads continued from previous summaries, out of a possible 18
6. Jokes
13. OTT ASX announcement: Equity Capital Raising
16. Tax Rates

There are 5 new threads.
19. Progress of the payout
20. Meeting of creditors to vary the Deed
21. Parliamentary Joint Committee
22. Swish Group
23. Emphasis being stripped from HTML mail


Thread: 6
Subject: Jokes

Email footers (from Nick).
-----
Disclaimer, n:
Advice to the reader that they should put their lawyer away
-----
Position vacant: Suicide bomber.
Must have experience.
-oOo-

Other funnies ...
-----
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 18:57:43 +1100
From: "Tom Northey" <tn@d...>

The letter that accepts your claim (or rejects it partially or totally)
from
Mr Yates is headed "Form 537" (well it is for me) but otherwise it
looks
like a letter.

Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:00:51 -0000
From: nick4mony
Subject: Statement of Claim

--- In openvictims@..., "Elizabeth Fullerton"
<laslig@o...> wrote:
> my letter doesn't have a form number. but it says they accept my
claim. and
> it's signed. in ink.

Not in blood? Sorry, not good enough.

==========

Where's a suicide bomber when you need one?


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



Thread: 13
Subject: OTT ASX announcement: Equity Capital Raising

Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:09:37 +1100
From: "Tom Northey" <tn@d...>
Subject: OT's share and option issue has been delayed slightly

OT's share and option issue has been delayed slightly apparently
because
they ran afoul of Corp Law section 727 "Offering securities without a
current disclosure document". It seems they got in trouble for issuing
the
placement options and/or shares too soon.

They have had to issue new prospectuses for the rights issue and the
options
issue (options are for for those in the placement).

See ASIC at http://tinyurl.com/335g5 and http://tinyurl.com/2p7dh


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



Thread: 16
Subject: Tax rates

Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:33:10 +1100
From: "Tom Northey" <tn@d...>
Subject: cheques are ready and update on tax rates

I just heard from Sallie that cheques are ready to be posted today.

An update on the tax rates info below...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Northey" <tn@d...>
To: <openvictims@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: [openvictims] tax rates


> http://www.ato.gov.au/content/downloads/n3351.pdf "Unused Leave
Payments
on
> Termination of Employment"
> says payment for unused leave and long service leave (in case of
> redundancies) is taxed at 31.5%.
>
> http://www.ato.gov.au/content/downloads/n3349.pdf "Eligible
Termination
> Payments" says
> ETP is taxed at 21.5%. The ETP is that part of the payment for
notice and
> redundancy that exceeds the tax free limit. You can roll the ETP
into a
> super fund and avoid the tax, but I doubt many people will exceed the
tax
> free limit for notice and redundancy.


Note that the payment in lieu of notice is always considered part of
the ETP
i.e. the tax free threshold applies only to the redundancy amount.

ETP's under $5k do not have to be reported to ATO and so do not count
towards your RBL (which determines how much super you can get at lower
tax
rates when you retire). So it seems to me that most people won't get
enough
redundancy and notice to be over $5k. By my calcs you had to have a
salary
over $135k before your notice went over $5k (after 44% applied).

"Reasonable benefit limits-which benefits do not count"
http://www.ato.gov.au/super/content.asp?doc=/content/12325.htm

> http://www.ato.gov.au/super/content.asp?doc=/content/19824.htm says
> The tax-free limit for the 2002/2003 year is a flat dollar amount of
$5,623
> plus $2,812 for each completed year of service. [We may get into the
> 2003/2004 tax year so presumably that is higher but I couldn't find
it.]
> Completed years of service include periods of annual leave and long
service
> leave taken. If the payment is more than the tax-free limit, the
amount
over
> the limit is an eligible termination payment (ETP).
>
> Above is provided you provide TFN.
>
> Also see
> Lump sum payments in arrears
> http://tinyurl.com/s0io or
>
http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/19854.htm&pc=001/002/\
037/008&mnu=992&mfp=001/002&st=&cy=1


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



Thread: 19
Subject: Progress of the payout

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:46:38 +1100
From: "Steve Gerlach" <gerlach@a...>
Subject: OT latest...

From the lovely Sallie...

Hi Steve,

We sent out some letters to employees yesterday formally admitting or
in
some cases partially rejecting claims. Under the Corporations Act
employees who have had claims rejected have 14 days to respond to /
disagree with our determination. As you know the dividend has been
declared for 8 December 2003 and we aim to pay the dividend as soon
after this date as possible. I am sorry I can't be more accurate with a
specific date or payment amount as yet, as it will depend on how
quickly
claims can be finalised i.e. if employees disagree with our
determination on their claims or not.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any further queries.


Regards,


Sallie Muir
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
(02) 9322 5621

==========

Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:30:05 +1100
From: "Tom Northey" <tn@...>
Subject: Re: The latest from the *very* lovely Sallie....

According to Peter Yates, employee entitlements admitted (as at 5 Dec)
are
$3,554,041

If that total doesn't change, it means the payout ratio will be
1,580,000 /
3,554,041 = 44.45%
i.e. in the first div, you should get half of 44.45% of the amount they
allowed in your claim.

==========

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:45:42 +1100
From: "Tom Northey" <tn@d...>
Subject: Status of employee payments

From Morgan Kelly at Deloitte:

>Can you let me know the status of employee payments?

The first distribution of $790,000 received from the company in August
2003
is being distributed to employees now: we are drawing cheques today and
tomorrow and expect that you should have the cheques by the end of the
week.
This amount is the first half of your entitlement of approximately 43c
per
dollar, so this amount will represent about 22c per dollar. This
payment is
being made independently of the creditors trust fund, it is coming to
you
out of the deed fund.

>Is it correct that the first employee payment that Deloitte (that
>already held) has been paid into the Employee Trust, and we will
>therefore receive our whole payout at once?

No. The Employee Trust has not yet been effected (although the trust
deed is
executed) as there are some conditions precedent to the trust coming
into
effect that must be met. Since this is the case we are proceeding with
the
original arrangements, which are to pay the first half of employee
entitlements from the deed fund.

>Has OT paid the remainder of the money owed under the Deed to
Deloitte?

Yes, we have received all the monies owed under the Deed. We are going
to
distribute the first $790,000 to employees now, and will pay the
balance
into the employees trust fund and the unsecured creditors trust fund,
and
anticipate making the next distribution to employees from the creditors
trust fund in early - mid January 2004.

>Has the Trust Deed been executed?

Yes, the trust deed has been executed, but it is not yet effective. The
reason it is not yet effective is that there are some conditions
precedent
to the trust deed the company must meet (paying the money to us,
receiving
confirmation from the ASX that the re-listing requirements have been
met)
and these are not yet all complete. The most important condition, us
receiving the money, has been completed though.

>Has the money been transferred from Deloitte to the trust?

No, not until the other conditions precedent have been met.

>When can we expect the cheques to be sent?

The first dividend cheques will be sent over the course of today and
tomorrow. The second round we anticipate sending in early to mid
January
2004.


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



Thread: 20
Subject: Meeting of creditors to vary the Deed.

Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:27:02 +1100
From: "Tom Northey" <tn@d...>
Subject: OTT proposal to vary the deed

Deloitte have called a meeting of creditors on 10 Dec 03 under 445F of
Corp
Act to vary the deed to allow them to terminate the deed after OT has
paid
the money for the creditors to Deloitte but before the creditors have
been
paid.

OT wants to vary the DoCA to establish a Creditors' Trust (one for
employees
and one for unsecured creditors) that will hold creditors money such
that
when OTT pays the amounts currently owed under the DoCA to Deloitte and
hence into the Trusts, the DoCA will be considered to be terminated
except
for a bit of legal paperwork. Deloitte will manage the Trusts to pay
creditors from the trust assets.

OT has stated that without additional funds, OT will likely go into
liquidation and DoCA obligations
would be
unlikely to be met. OT has stated
that
they cannot raise capital without a guaranteed period of termination
for the
DoCA.

OTT has advised that they can only get the money from the current
capital
raising if they can guarantee the underwriter and new investors that
the
company is re-listed by early Feb 03.
According to OT statements, the ASX will only allow relisting once the
DoCA
has terminated and (according to OT) Deloitte have advised OT that even
if
OT have paid all the money owing under the DoCA to Deloitte, Deloitte
cannot
guarantee that payments have been made by then (which is required to
terminate the deed).

It appears that OT will fund the Creditors' Trust to the tune of $100k
and
anything over that comes out of the creditors money.

The proposal removes all legal rights of creditors with respect to
DoCAs
available under corp law although allegedly the trust deed will be
drawn up
to allow creditors to dispute their entitlements.

Deloitte are recommending the proposal to creditors, despite noting
that
GEERS claimants would be better off if OT was liquidated.

==========

There was a bit of consternation about the treatment of fees in excess
of $100k - the original proposal had it coming out of the Creditors'
Trust Fund. Refer to the next email for a resolution.

==========

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:42:14 +1100
From: "Tom Northey" <tn@d...>
Subject: discussion with deed administrator - small piece of good news

I have just spoken to the Peter Yates the deed administrator.

The small piece of good news is that he told me he has made legally
binding
changes to the proposed variation and had it approved by a court order
such
that all fees of the proposed Trusts are payable by OT. OT will still
pay
the $100k up front but beyond that OT is still responsible for the fees
unless it goes broke and has insufficient assets (Deloitte will get
their
fees from the Trusts' assets in that case). He told me this is the
same as
the current situation i.e. we will be no worse off regarding fees.

Deloitte will post these documents on their web site and send me a link
when
it is available, hopefully tonight.

==========

Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:59:01 +1100
From: "Tom Northey" <tn@d...>
Subject: Updated versions of Deed proposal & related documents

The updated variation of the Deed proposal, the Draft Trust Deed, Draft
Deed
of Company Arrangement and the court order is on Deloitte's website.
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/article/0,2297,sid%253D9464%2526cid%253D31640,00.htm\
l

==========

Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:58:44 +1100
From: "Tom Northey" <tn@d...>

I was looking the other day for where it says big creditors get more
votes
and couldn't find it (in corp law) so if someone can point it out, I'd
appreciate it.

==========

Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:06:41 -0000
From: "landau351" <landau351@v...>
Subject: Voting at the next meeting

> Now, if the vote goes through (which, face it, it probably will,
this is a
> good thing for the big creditors, and they are owed a lot more than
us so
> they have more clout)

As I understand it, simply being a bigger creditor doesn't mean you
have
more clout. You ALSO need the majority of votes as well.

If you get more people to vote No than Yes, but the most $$ are with
the Yes
vote then it gets messy, but it is not a forgone that we all lose.

However if you all vote in a successful block, and it is disputed
(duh!)
then the $ amount must be calculated as well.

==========

Note from Nick Bishop:
Voting is initially by number. Any two creditors may request that the
voting be tallied by value and number, in which case the meeting
convenor must comply.

If you get the messy situation that more people vote against, but the
most value vote for (or vice versa) then the Administrator gets the
casting vote.


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



Thread: 21
Subject: Parliamentary Joint Committee.

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:42:50 +1100
From: "Paul S Davis" <p.s.davis@i...>
Subject: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Proof Committee Hansard SENATE
EMPLOYMENT...

www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S7061.pdf

.........................................................

Senator WONG-I have some brief questions about deeds of company
arrangements. I think we discussed
this on the last occasion. On how many occasions are you aware that
what
one would call a discriminatory deed-that is, a deed where the priority
of
creditors under the Corporations Law is altered-has had the effect of
disentitling persons to GEERS payments?

Mr Maynard-To my knowledge there was one case.

Senator WONG-What was the name of the company?

Mr Maynard-The case in question was the subject of a press release by
the
minister, and the company's name was Open Telecommunications.
.........................................................

Senator WONG-Are you able to provide this committee with the number of
employees that have been
denied GEERS payments as a result of discriminatory deeds?

Mr Maynard-I would have to take that on notice, but it would be the
employees within Open
Telecommunications.

Senator WONG-I have already given you the name of other companies. Can
I
clarify: I do not only want people where you have made a decision as to
final eligibility; I would like to know all employees where the issue
of a
deed of company arrangement is currently preventing them from accessing
GEERS. I am happy for you to take that on notice.

.........................................................

Senator WONG-Mr Maynard, the committee in question-the Parliamentary
Joint
Committee on
Corporations and Financial Services-in the insolvency inquiry was
actually
provided with correspondence from you discussing the non-entitlement
under
GEERS, so I find it hard to understand how you indicate you are not
aware
of anyone other than Open Telecommunications.

Dr Boxall-He said he was aware of one other, but your question was to
provide the numbers of employees that were rendered ineligible because
a
deed of company arrangement changed the list of priority. There is only
one
company that Mr Maynard has finalised, and that is Open
Telecommunications.
We can give you the number of employees in Open Telecommunications, but
we
are not able to add other companies to it because we have yet to
process
the whole result.


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



Thread: 22
Subject: Swish Group

In a discussion between Tom Northey and Peter Yates, Peter mentioned
another company called Swish Group which has a very
similar
DoCA to OT. DEWR is still undecided on the Swish case.


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



Thread: 23
Subject: Emphasis being stripped from HTML mail

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:21:44 -0000
From: nick4mony
Subject: Emphasis being stripped from HTML mail

--- In openvictims@..., "GERLACH, Steven"
<steven.gerlach@s...> wrote:
> Oops...sorry, looks like the openvictims list strips out the emphasis
in
> HTML email... apologies to those who are missing it.

This list is set up to strip attachments, and to be a text-only list.
This is OK for most people, but this means the emphasis will get
dropped.

A few hotmail users have had trouble posting to this list (but others
are successful). There must be a setting in there somewhere. If it
says HTML, turn it off.

========= End of summary ==========