This a request my email address to be exposed to to the other group members thus
I can start sending messages to the members of this group.
Regards,
Mina
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From Nick Bishop, nick4mony@b...
This is an automatic reminder sent upon subscribing and once every two weeks.
People,
Thankyou for taking part in this email list. Some points to remember when using
this email list.
1. To view old messages, shared files (*.pdf, etc), and the members list go to
the web site:
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms
Those with yahoo ID's can also set options on their membership, send messages,
and hide their email address (for total spam protection).
2. If any member has files they wish to share, please don't send them
as attachments to messages - they will be stripped.
Instead, upload them to the Files section (a Yahoo ID is required to
upload, but not to view). Or send them as an attachment to me
otmushrooms-owner@...
3. When replying to messages, please trim the quoted message down to that which
is relevant.
4. You are reminded that ANYONE can view message archives and files
(this can be changed, but there is a serious issue in doing so), but
only members can post and upload files.
5. Special note: I am very interested in getting as many people as
possible to join this list. Please contact anyone you know who is
owed at least $1.
6. We're all here for a good time, and there's going to be a lot of
people poking fun at a lot of things, but play the ball, not the
man. Please be aware: I know that Deloittes have joined this list,
and they are nice enough to answer questions as they arise.
Again, thanks for taking part.
Nick Bishop, ...@ bigfoot.com
I've heard that there have been more retrenchments from Open
Telecommunications, so I am posting the following advertisement
Richard Watson
-----Original Message-----
From: Jessy Mcgregor [mailto:jessy@...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 10:15 AM
To: rwatson@...
Subject: New role: OO Software Engineer, CCVCP05715BC
Hi Richard,
We have another position that you may be suitable for, or know of
someone who is. The role description is seen below.
We are seeking 2 experienced OO Software Engineers. To be succesfull in
this role you will need to have a proven technical background in C++
development, a strong working knowledge of OOA&D, a minimum of three
years working in a commercial environment and a proven history of
succesfully completing work to tight deadlines. We are not seeking the
average developer, we are looking for people who are enthusiastic and
passionate about what they do. Your communication skills will need to
reflect this. Role is based in Geelong so you must either live in
Geelong or be willing to commute/move.
If this sounds like you, please send through a current version of your
resume. Hope to hear from you soon.
Best Regards,
Jessy Macgregor
Resource Consultant
MACRO Recruitment
From Nick Bishop, nick4mony@b...
This is an automatic reminder sent upon subscribing and once every two weeks.
People,
Thankyou for taking part in this email list. Some points to remember when using
this email list.
1. To view old messages, shared files (*.pdf, etc), and the members list go to
the web site:
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms
Those with yahoo ID's can also set options on their membership, send messages,
and hide their email address (for total spam protection).
2. If any member has files they wish to share, please don't send them
as attachments to messages - they will be stripped.
Instead, upload them to the Files section (a Yahoo ID is required to
upload, but not to view). Or send them as an attachment to me
otmushrooms-owner@...
3. When replying to messages, please trim the quoted message down to that which
is relevant.
4. You are reminded that ANYONE can view message archives and files
(this can be changed, but there is a serious issue in doing so), but
only members can post and upload files.
5. Special note: I am very interested in getting as many people as
possible to join this list. Please contact anyone you know who is
owed at least $1.
6. We're all here for a good time, and there's going to be a lot of
people poking fun at a lot of things, but play the ball, not the
man. Please be aware: I know that Deloittes have joined this list,
and they are nice enough to answer questions as they arise.
Again, thanks for taking part.
Nick Bishop, ...@ bigfoot.com
" National Express's parent group will contribute $10 million to creditors
if a deed of company arrangement is accepted. At best, creditors will
receive about 43c in the dollar."
....in about 12 years time....
SG
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nick4mony [mailto:no_reply@...]
> Sent: Monday, 12 May 2003 1:18 PM
> To: otmushrooms@...
> Subject: [otmushrooms] Same administrator, similar result
>
> The 43% fraction, and the name Robert Whitton has come up in another
> forum. Funny how the same person leads to a similar result ...
>
>
> (For those that don't know, Robert Whitton is also the administrator
> of National Express, running M> and V/Line trains & trams in
> Melbourne).
>
> I will try to get onto Trevor Dobbyn to see whether the staff have
> been paid out.
>
> Full story from the Herald Sun (a Daily Telegraph lookalike) below.
> ----------- *************** ------------
> Subject: HS: $20m transport payout
>
> http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6158949%
> 255E2862,00.html
>
> $20m transport payout
> By JOHN MASANAUSKAS, transport reporter
> 21mar03
>
> THE State Government yesterday announced a $20 million bailout of
> firms
> hit by the collapse of public transport operator National Express.
>
> And administrators of the failed British-owned company said it was
> possible it traded while insolvent and directors could face charges.
>
> Transport Minister Peter Batchelor announced the bailout in Parliament
> yesterday afternoon, shortly after the world was distracted by the
> start
> of the Iraq war.
>
> Opposition transport spokesman Terry Mulder said Mr Batchelor had
> reversed his earlier policy on the payout under the cover of war.
>
> "He's done a double backflip and thrown in $20 million hoping no one
> would notice," he said.
>
> But Mr Batchelor's spokesman, Matt Phelan, denied the Government had
> tried to use the war to hide the payout.
>
> Mr Phelan said the Government was obliged to provide details after
> National Express administrators told creditors about the payment on
> Wednesday.
>
> "We have no control over the administration. The administrators put
> out
> a report," he said. "If we hadn't done anything we would have been
> accused of hiding a secret payment".
>
> Mr Batchelor pledged the $20 million yesterday after hinting to the
> Herald Sun last week that unsecured creditors were unlikely to get
> Government help.
>
> National Express, the former operator of M>Train, M>Tram and V/Line
> passenger service, owed about $70 million to hundreds of trade
> creditors.
>
> Major creditors include transport infrastructure company Thiess,
> maintenance firm EDI Rail, Bombardier Transportation and TXU
> Electricity.
>
> In December, when National Express withdrew from its privatisation
> contracts, Mr Batchelor said the Government would honour the wages and
> entitlements of the company's employees.
>
> But no commitment was given to trade creditors.
>
> Mr Phelan said the Government had decided to help the firms because of
> their role in keeping the public transport system running.
>
> "They remain an important part of the system," he said.
>
> National Express's parent group will contribute $10 million to
> creditors
> if a deed of company arrangement is accepted. At best, creditors will
> receive about 43c in the dollar.
>
> Rail, Tram and Bus Union state secretary Trevor Dobbyn said taxpayers
> were again footing the bill for a failed Kennett era privatisation
> experiment.
>
> In their latest report, National Express administrators said there was
> a
> strong argument the group traded while insolvent from December 16 to
> 23
> last year.
>
> "And quite possibly for a period prior to the announcement by the
> parent
> company that it would withdraw funding from the Group," they said.
>
> Joint administrators Simon Wallace-Smith and Robert Whitton said some
> National Express directors and employees could face prosecution under
> the Corporations Act.
>
> A second creditors' meeting will be held next Wednesday, when the
> administrators will recommend a 60-day adjournment to consider a deed
> of
> company arrangement.
>
>
>
> 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/
The 43% fraction, and the name Robert Whitton has come up in another
forum. Funny how the same person leads to a similar result ...
(For those that don't know, Robert Whitton is also the administrator
of National Express, running M> and V/Line trains & trams in
Melbourne).
I will try to get onto Trevor Dobbyn to see whether the staff have
been paid out.
Full story from the Herald Sun (a Daily Telegraph lookalike) below.
----------- *************** ------------
Subject: HS: $20m transport payout
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6158949%
255E2862,00.html
$20m transport payout
By JOHN MASANAUSKAS, transport reporter
21mar03
THE State Government yesterday announced a $20 million bailout of
firms
hit by the collapse of public transport operator National Express.
And administrators of the failed British-owned company said it was
possible it traded while insolvent and directors could face charges.
Transport Minister Peter Batchelor announced the bailout in Parliament
yesterday afternoon, shortly after the world was distracted by the
start
of the Iraq war.
Opposition transport spokesman Terry Mulder said Mr Batchelor had
reversed his earlier policy on the payout under the cover of war.
"He's done a double backflip and thrown in $20 million hoping no one
would notice," he said.
But Mr Batchelor's spokesman, Matt Phelan, denied the Government had
tried to use the war to hide the payout.
Mr Phelan said the Government was obliged to provide details after
National Express administrators told creditors about the payment on
Wednesday.
"We have no control over the administration. The administrators put
out
a report," he said. "If we hadn't done anything we would have been
accused of hiding a secret payment".
Mr Batchelor pledged the $20 million yesterday after hinting to the
Herald Sun last week that unsecured creditors were unlikely to get
Government help.
National Express, the former operator of M>Train, M>Tram and V/Line
passenger service, owed about $70 million to hundreds of trade
creditors.
Major creditors include transport infrastructure company Thiess,
maintenance firm EDI Rail, Bombardier Transportation and TXU
Electricity.
In December, when National Express withdrew from its privatisation
contracts, Mr Batchelor said the Government would honour the wages and
entitlements of the company's employees.
But no commitment was given to trade creditors.
Mr Phelan said the Government had decided to help the firms because of
their role in keeping the public transport system running.
"They remain an important part of the system," he said.
National Express's parent group will contribute $10 million to
creditors
if a deed of company arrangement is accepted. At best, creditors will
receive about 43c in the dollar.
Rail, Tram and Bus Union state secretary Trevor Dobbyn said taxpayers
were again footing the bill for a failed Kennett era privatisation
experiment.
In their latest report, National Express administrators said there was
a
strong argument the group traded while insolvent from December 16 to
23
last year.
"And quite possibly for a period prior to the announcement by the
parent
company that it would withdraw funding from the Group," they said.
Joint administrators Simon Wallace-Smith and Robert Whitton said some
National Express directors and employees could face prosecution under
the Corporations Act.
A second creditors' meeting will be held next Wednesday, when the
administrators will recommend a 60-day adjournment to consider a deed
of
company arrangement.
Were the people covered by the IT Award. If they were not, would they be
prepared to provide documentation to DEWR?
regards
Paul
>Yep....
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Steve Gerlach [mailto:gerlach@...]
>Sent: Thursday, 6 February 2003 22:08
>To: otmushrooms@...
>Subject: RE: [otmushrooms] OT Layoffs
>
>
>Will they get redundancy payments????
>
>If so, I'm about to lose my grip on reality....
>
>SG
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ben Castan [mailto:ben.castan@...]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 30 April 2003 7:16 PM
>> To: otmushrooms@...
>> Subject: [otmushrooms] OT Layoffs
>>
>>
>> It looks like OT has layed off another 12 staff today.
>>
>> Ben Castan
>>
>> 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/
>>
>> ---
>> Incoming mail is
>> certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/2003
>>
>>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/2003
>
>
>
>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/
>
>
>
Grip on reality lost.
UNBELIEVEABLE.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Castan [mailto:ben.castan@...]
> Sent: Thursday, 1 May 2003 8:53 AM
> To: otmushrooms@...
> Subject: RE: [otmushrooms] OT Layoffs
>
> Yep....
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Gerlach [mailto:gerlach@...]
> Sent: Thursday, 6 February 2003 22:08
> To: otmushrooms@...
> Subject: RE: [otmushrooms] OT Layoffs
>
>
> Will they get redundancy payments????
>
> If so, I'm about to lose my grip on reality....
>
> SG
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ben Castan [mailto:ben.castan@...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 30 April 2003 7:16 PM
> > To: otmushrooms@...
> > Subject: [otmushrooms] OT Layoffs
> >
> >
> > It looks like OT has layed off another 12 staff today.
> >
> > Ben Castan
> >
> > 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/
> >
> > ---
> > Incoming mail is
> > certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/2003
> >
> >
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/2003
>
>
>
> 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/
Yep....
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Gerlach [mailto:gerlach@...]
Sent: Thursday, 6 February 2003 22:08
To: otmushrooms@...
Subject: RE: [otmushrooms] OT Layoffs
Will they get redundancy payments????
If so, I'm about to lose my grip on reality....
SG
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Castan [mailto:ben.castan@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 April 2003 7:16 PM
> To: otmushrooms@...
> Subject: [otmushrooms] OT Layoffs
>
>
> It looks like OT has layed off another 12 staff today.
>
> Ben Castan
>
> 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/
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is
> certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/2003
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/2003
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/
Will they get redundancy payments????
If so, I'm about to lose my grip on reality....
SG
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Castan [mailto:ben.castan@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 April 2003 7:16 PM
> To: otmushrooms@...
> Subject: [otmushrooms] OT Layoffs
>
>
> It looks like OT has layed off another 12 staff today.
>
> Ben Castan
>
> 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/
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is
> certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/2003
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/2003
From Nick Bishop, nick4mony@b...
This is an automatic reminder sent upon subscribing and once every two weeks.
People,
Thankyou for taking part in this email list. Some points to remember when using
this email list.
1. To view old messages, shared files (*.pdf, etc), and the members list go to
the web site:
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms
Those with yahoo ID's can also set options on their membership, send messages,
and hide their email address (for total spam protection).
2. If any member has files they wish to share, please don't send them
as attachments to messages - they will be stripped.
Instead, upload them to the Files section (a Yahoo ID is required to
upload, but not to view). Or send them as an attachment to me
otmushrooms-owner@...
3. When replying to messages, please trim the quoted message down to that which
is relevant.
4. You are reminded that ANYONE can view message archives and files
(this can be changed, but there is a serious issue in doing so), but
only members can post and upload files.
5. Special note: I am very interested in getting as many people as
possible to join this list. Please contact anyone you know who is
owed at least $1.
6. We're all here for a good time, and there's going to be a lot of
people poking fun at a lot of things, but play the ball, not the
man. Please be aware: I know that Deloittes have joined this list,
and they are nice enough to answer questions as they arise.
Again, thanks for taking part.
Nick Bishop, ...@ bigfoot.com
Would "webbn99" contact me privately so I can get you onto the
private openVictims list? Include a phone number.
Reply to the swapped version of
yahoogroups.com.au @ openvictims-owner
Nick Bishop.
-----
UFO's are real. The Air Force doesn't exist
-oOo-
From Nick Bishop, nick4mony@b...
This is an automatic reminder sent upon subscribing and once every two weeks.
People,
Thankyou for taking part in this email list. Some points to remember when using
this email list.
1. To view old messages, shared files (*.pdf, etc), and the members list go to
the web site:
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms
Those with yahoo ID's can also set options on their membership, send messages,
and hide their email address (for total spam protection).
2. If any member has files they wish to share, please don't send them
as attachments to messages - they will be stripped.
Instead, upload them to the Files section (a Yahoo ID is required to
upload, but not to view). Or send them as an attachment to me
otmushrooms-owner@...
3. When replying to messages, please trim the quoted message down to that which
is relevant.
4. You are reminded that ANYONE can view message archives and files
(this can be changed, but there is a serious issue in doing so), but
only members can post and upload files.
5. Special note: I am very interested in getting as many people as
possible to join this list. Please contact anyone you know who is
owed at least $1.
6. We're all here for a good time, and there's going to be a lot of
people poking fun at a lot of things, but play the ball, not the
man. Please be aware: I know that Deloittes have joined this list,
and they are nice enough to answer questions as they arise.
Again, thanks for taking part.
Nick Bishop, ...@ bigfoot.com
Letter to the editor as it was printed:
Paper: Whitehorse Leader
Date: February 5, 2003
This paper is a local one that circulates in and around the Box Hill
area. It's a News Ltd powered paper, but similar to the Cumberland
group suburban papers.
A few points in my letter didn't make it in:
-> they stripped all mention that it was a software company
-> the fact that we were still waiting for a GEERS decision 6
months on
Law review needed
-----------------
There are major inadequacies in how the Government deals with
corporate collapses, and these inadequacies are still hurting many
Whitehorse families after a company in Box Hill collapsed six months
ago.
I was recently made redundant from a software company in Box Hill. I
am still waiting for a payment along with the other 92 staff that
were made redundant with me, and I believe there are two areas of
government policy that need fixing.
The first is the GEERS scheme, which pays the entitlements and
redundancy of workers in failed companies. If the company had been
liquidated, this scheme would pay out everyone's redundancy.
However, unlike most other companies, this one continues to trade
under a Deed. The Government should be grateful it is not up for the
redundancies and dole payments of all 220 staff. Instead, the
Government is saying that the Deed may limit our rights under the
GEERS scheme, because the Deed limits our recovery to either 20 or 43
per cent, in our case.
The second area of Government inadequacy is that Corporations Law
allows company directors or Administrators to propose a Deed of
Company Arrangement which effectively bars creditors from being ever
paid in full even though the company may recover and make huge
profits. There is no equivalent to this in personal bankrupcy law.
It is time that the Government made things simpler:
1) The GEERS scheme should pay without regard to whether a company
is being liquidated or not,
2) A Deed of Company Arrangement should always involve full payment
of all debts.
Nicholas Bishop, Vermont South
Listed 01 Apr 2003
Senior Developer CRM & OSS Systems
Fast Paced Environment
Great Team
Circa $80K plus
We have an opportunity for a skilled Senior Developer to join our fast paced
IT department here at MCT. You will be responsible for development,
maintenance and support of company’s CRM and OSS systems with the objective
of consistently improving the performance and support of business needs.
Your duties & responsibilities will be as follows: -
- Develop Technical Design documents for CRM and OSS system modifications
- Develop and support MCT CRM systems (Sales & Marketing Automation, Call
Centre and Helpdesk modules)
- Develop complex reports for MCT employees and customers
- Construct and optimize SQL queries
- Analyze and find resolution of system faults
- Develop interfaces between CRM, Billing, Extranet and other OSS systems
- Work in conjunction with Business Analysts and users to develop quality
CRM solutions with minimal risks to the business
- Maintain quality service and development levels as agreed by the ‘Team’
You will have the following skills: -
- Proven abilities working on large scale development projects using SQL
Server, Java, and CRM software (preferably Applix)
- Experience with at least one CRM Implementation project (Siebel, Clarify,
Applix, etc) in a developer or system architect role
- Knowledge of and experience working with VB COM, ASP and web technologies
- Hands on SDLC experience and knowledge of methodologies
- Change Management and Version Control
- SQL Server administration and development
- Java programming and OOD knowledge
- MS Exchange server, Outlook and MAPI
- Crystal Reporting and Crystal Report API
- Knowledge of and experience working with Microsoft systems architecture
and new technologies (at least one of EAI, Business Process Automation,
Business Intelligence, Portal Technology)
- Telecommunications business and technical Knowledge
Other key attributes are: -
- Must be a team member and assist other in the ‘team’
- Ability to solve complex problems
- Ability to understand risk to the project of making assumptions
- Customer focused
- Excellent communication skills-both written and verbal
Coupled with these above mentioned criteria you will have experience in the
following technical environments: - Windows NT, Microsoft SQL Server,
Microsoft Outlook, Applix, Java development Platform, VB COM, ASP
Contact Macquarie Corporate Telecommunications - Sydney
-------Original Message-------
From: otmushrooms@...
Date: Monday, 31 March 2003 3:37:25 AM
To: otmushrooms@...
Subject: [otmushrooms] File - fortnight.txt
>From Nick Bishop, nick4mony@b...
This is an automatic reminder sent upon subscribing and once every two weeks
People,
Thankyou for taking part in this email list. Some points to remember when
using this email list.
1. To view old messages, shared files (*.pdf, etc), and the members list go
to the web site:
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms
Those with yahoo ID's can also set options on their membership, send
messages, and hide their email address (for total spam protection).
2. If any member has files they wish to share, please don't send them
as attachments to messages - they will be stripped.
Instead, upload them to the Files section (a Yahoo ID is required to
upload, but not to view). Or send them as an attachment to me
otmushrooms-owner@...
3. When replying to messages, please trim the quoted message down to that
which is relevant.
4. You are reminded that ANYONE can view message archives and files
(this can be changed, but there is a serious issue in doing so), but
only members can post and upload files.
5. Special note: I am very interested in getting as many people as
possible to join this list. Please contact anyone you know who is
owed at least $1.
6. We're all here for a good time, and there's going to be a lot of
people poking fun at a lot of things, but play the ball, not the
man. Please be aware: I know that Deloittes have joined this list,
and they are nice enough to answer questions as they arise.
Again, thanks for taking part.
Nick Bishop, ...@ bigfoot.com
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]
From Nick Bishop, nick4mony@b...
This is an automatic reminder sent upon subscribing and once every two weeks.
People,
Thankyou for taking part in this email list. Some points to remember when using
this email list.
1. To view old messages, shared files (*.pdf, etc), and the members list go to
the web site:
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms
Those with yahoo ID's can also set options on their membership, send messages,
and hide their email address (for total spam protection).
2. If any member has files they wish to share, please don't send them
as attachments to messages - they will be stripped.
Instead, upload them to the Files section (a Yahoo ID is required to
upload, but not to view). Or send them as an attachment to me
otmushrooms-owner@...
3. When replying to messages, please trim the quoted message down to that which
is relevant.
4. You are reminded that ANYONE can view message archives and files
(this can be changed, but there is a serious issue in doing so), but
only members can post and upload files.
5. Special note: I am very interested in getting as many people as
possible to join this list. Please contact anyone you know who is
owed at least $1.
6. We're all here for a good time, and there's going to be a lot of
people poking fun at a lot of things, but play the ball, not the
man. Please be aware: I know that Deloittes have joined this list,
and they are nice enough to answer questions as they arise.
Again, thanks for taking part.
Nick Bishop, ...@ bigfoot.com
From Nick Bishop, nick4mony@b...
This is an automatic reminder sent upon subscribing and once every two weeks.
People,
Thankyou for taking part in this email list. Some points to remember when using
this email list.
1. To view old messages, shared files (*.pdf, etc), and the members list go to
the web site:
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms
Those with yahoo ID's can also set options on their membership, send messages,
and hide their email address (for total spam protection).
2. If any member has files they wish to share, please don't send them
as attachments to messages - they will be stripped.
Instead, upload them to the Files section (a Yahoo ID is required to
upload, but not to view). Or send them as an attachment to me
otmushrooms-owner@...
3. When replying to messages, please trim the quoted message down to that which
is relevant.
4. You are reminded that ANYONE can view message archives and files
(this can be changed, but there is a serious issue in doing so), but
only members can post and upload files.
5. Special note: I am very interested in getting as many people as
possible to join this list. Please contact anyone you know who is
owed at least $1.
6. We're all here for a good time, and there's going to be a lot of
people poking fun at a lot of things, but play the ball, not the
man. Please be aware: I know that Deloittes have joined this list,
and they are nice enough to answer questions as they arise.
Again, thanks for taking part.
Nick Bishop, ...@ bigfoot.com
this has been mentioned on some of my other lists - noone seems to know what
has happened, but a lot of people have just dropped off lists.
----- Original Message -----
From: "nick4mony" <no_reply@...>
To: <otmushrooms@...>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 6:50 PM
Subject: [otmushrooms] Some Hotmail email addresses have gone cold
> People,
>
> A few hotmail addresses have started bouncing. I've sent
> reactivation requests, and normal messages, to those that I could.
>
> The diagnostic is
> Remote host said: 550 5.7.1 Unable to relay for [xxx]
>
> Note that other hotmail addresses have remained unaffected. Anyone
> care for a bit of Microsoft bashing?
>
> Nick.
> -----
> I wonder if Microsoft uses Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu as their
> accountants??
> -oOo-
>
>
> 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/
>
>
People,
A few hotmail addresses have started bouncing. I've sent
reactivation requests, and normal messages, to those that I could.
The diagnostic is
Remote host said: 550 5.7.1 Unable to relay for [xxx]
Note that other hotmail addresses have remained unaffected. Anyone
care for a bit of Microsoft bashing?
Nick.
-----
I wonder if Microsoft uses Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu as their
accountants??
-oOo-
From Nick Bishop, nick4mony@b...
This is an automatic reminder sent upon subscribing and once every two weeks.
People,
Thankyou for taking part in this email list. Some points to remember when using
this email list.
1. To view old messages, shared files (*.pdf, etc), and the members list go to
the web site:
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms
Those with yahoo ID's can also set options on their membership, send messages,
and hide their email address (for total spam protection).
2. If any member has files they wish to share, please don't send them
as attachments to messages - they will be stripped.
Instead, upload them to the Files section (a Yahoo ID is required to
upload, but not to view). Or send them as an attachment to me
otmushrooms-owner@...
3. When replying to messages, please trim the quoted message down to that which
is relevant.
4. You are reminded that ANYONE can view message archives and files
(this can be changed, but there is a serious issue in doing so), but
only members can post and upload files.
5. Special note: I am very interested in getting as many people as
possible to join this list. Please contact anyone you know who is
owed at least $1.
6. We're all here for a good time, and there's going to be a lot of
people poking fun at a lot of things, but play the ball, not the
man. Please be aware: I know that Deloittes have joined this list,
and they are nice enough to answer questions as they arise.
Again, thanks for taking part.
Nick Bishop, ...@ bigfoot.com
>Any news for ex-employees ? It's been 6+ weeks since the last
DEWR are waiting on Deloitte to prove that they have subrogation rights in
the DOCA, before they will proceed. Deloitte is getting legal advice to
whether our DOCA has a similar problem to the one which Supreme Court made
a ruling on. I am regularing contacting Deloitte's to get an update.
regards
Paul
>Hi Paul,
>
>Any news for ex-employees ? It's been 6+ weeks since the last
correspondence from DEWR....
>
>thanks,
>
>Rod
>
>--
>mailto:rod.good@...
>
>Macquarie Bank
>Level 3 / 1 Martin Place
>Sydney 2000
>
>Work: +61 2 8232 4764
>Fax: +61 2 8232 3177
>Cellular: 0409 828 388
>
>
>NOTICE
>This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may contain copyright
material of Macquarie Bank or third parties. If you are not the intended
recipient of this email you should not read, print, re-transmit, store or
act in reliance on this e-mail or any attachments, and should destroy all
copies of them. Macquarie Bank does not guarantee the integrity of any
emails or any attached files. The views or opinions expressed are the
author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Macquarie Bank.
>
>
Employee entitlements under administration
The Supreme Court of New South Wales recently ruled that the Commonwealth
does not have any implied or statutory right in a Deed of Company
Arrangement DOCA) to claim funds to the amount it has already paid to the
former employees under the General Employees Entitlement and Redundancy
Scheme (GEERS).1
More specifically, the Court stated that the Commonwealth does not have any
right in a DOCA (in the absence of specific contractual terms) under or by
analogy with section 560 of the Corporations Act (CA) to stand in the shoes
of the former employees to the extent that it has already made payments
under the GEERS; and that a redundancy payment can be an implied term of a
contract which will bring that payment within the terms of s556(1)(h) of the
CA.
Background
Seventeen former employees made claims under the DOCA for redundancy
payments. Those claims had already been rejected by GEERS. The plaintiff,
the administrator of the DOCA, sought either advice and directions from the
Court, or a declaratory order, that it would be justified in making
redundancy payments having the level of priority accorded by s556(1)(h) CA.
GEERS provides for payment by the Commonwealth Department of Employment and
Workplace Relations
Department) of entitlements to employees whose employment has been
terminated as a result of the employer’s insolvency. Those entitlements are:
a) payment to employees of all unpaid wages, annual leave, long service
leave, payment in lieu of notice and up to eight weeks redundancy pay,
subject to a de.salary cap; and (b) recovery of funds from the realisation
of assets other proceedings.
GEERS paid some of the former employees entitlements, but declined to pay
any entitlement inrespect of the redundancy component of retrenchment pay on
the basis that there was no provision for redundancy pay in their employment
contract.
A document prepared by the Department which describes the main features of
GEERS contained a statement that s560 CA would be relied upon to enable
advances paid by GEERS to employees to be recovered.
Section 560
In a liquidation, s560 CA enables a person who advances money to pay
employee entitlements to enjoy the same priority the employee would have
enjoyed for those amounts. However, section 560 only applies in a
liquidation and not under a DOCA.
Commonwealth Department of Employment and Workplace Relations will need to
have
section 560 specifically incorporated into the contractual terms of deeds of
company arrangement if it wishes to recoup any payments made by it under
GEERS.
Here Justice Austin stated that the Department did not have any rights under
or by analogy with s560to stand in the shoes of the former employees, to the
extent that it had already made payments under GEERS in satisfaction of
their claims for such matters as annual leave, payment in lieu of notice and
long service leave. His Honour made this finding as there was nothing to
suggest that the deed imported into contractual provisions the statutory
rights conferred section 560.
Creditors under DOCA
The central issue upon which the plaintiff’s application rested was whether
the 17 former employees were Priority Creditors under the DOCA. If the
former employees received payment from the plaintiff in respect of the
redundancy claims, there would be nothing left for the unsecured creditors
generally. The judge found that the former employees were Priority Creditors
under the DOCA, not because their claims fell within s556(1) CA, but because
the provisions of the DOCA imported the system of ranking in s556(1) CA as a
matter of contractual covenant. Section 556(1) CA provides that the debts
and claims listed in that subsection must be paid in priority to all other
unsecured debts and claims. Section 556(1)(h) provides for priority payment
of ‘retrenchment payments payable to employees of the company’. The
expression ‘retrenchment payment’ is defined in s556(2), in relation to an
employee of the company, to mean an amount payable by the company to the
employee, by virtue of an industrial instrument, in respect of the
termination of the employee’s employment by the company. ‘Industrial
instrument’ is defined in s9 CA to mean (a) a contract of employment, or (b)
a law, award, determination or agreement relating to terms or conditions of
employment. Justice Austin found (where those administering GEERS had not)
that the contract of employment of each of the former employees was partly
in writing and partly implied, and there was an implied term of the
employment contract that if made redundant, employees would be entitled to a
payment calculated on the basis of three weeks wages for each year of
service, rounded up to the nearest year.
Outcomes
This case is important in that it clarifies some aspects of the GEERS as it
relates to deeds of company arrangement. It suggests that in the absence of
legislative intervention, where possible the Commonwealth Department of
Employment and Workplace Relations will need to have section 560
specifically incorporated into the contractual terms of deeds of company
arrangement if it wishes to recoup any payments made by it under GEERS.
Another option which the Commonwealth could consider is obtaining an express
written assignment from each employee of his or her rights - this will at
least ensure that the Commonwealth can vote on the DOCA as a creditor to the
value of the total claims it has paid out and that it can prove in the DOCA.
The DOCA will still need to expressly provide for the relevant priority for
the Commonwealth to get the priority treatment usually afforded to employees
1. Green as Deed of Administrator of ACN 050 541 047 Ltd
(Subject to Deed of Arrangement)) v Commonwealth, Unreported, Supreme Court
of NSW, 3 July 2002.
Allens Arthur Robinson
Tania Cini
Partner, Melbourne
Ph: +61 3 9613 8574
Tania.Cini@...
-----------------------------------
Michael Quinlan
Partner, Sydney
Ph: +61 2 9230 4411
Michael.Quinlan@...
-------Original Message-------
From: otmushrooms@...
Date: Tuesday, 25 February 2003 10:14:53 AM
To: otmushrooms@...
Subject: RE: [otmushrooms] OT GEERS Update 22-2-2003
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]
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]
It should have been evident from the start who Deloitte was working for.
They were certainly NOT looking the interest of all creditors. The evidence
of this is the almost total lack of communication with exOTers throughout
the entire process to date. I am sure this wasn't the case between the OT
management and Deloitte.
One thing that comes to mind was how Deloitte acted dumb at the initial
meeting back at OT about GEERS and how it would take care of our problems (I
can picture the lady holding up the GEERS brochure). They wanted us to
believe that was a straight forward program that would address our
particular needs.
What would be interesting is whether or not Deloitte had ANY prior
experience with administering an Australian company that was released from
Deloitte administration (read management) by DOCA. If that turns out to be
the case, then Deloitte wanted us to believe that GEERs would apply in order
to gain our support. Remember how they didn't even want our individual
votes, but instead we were encouraged to use a proxy. The bottom line if
this is true is that exOTers were not given all the facts and were used to
get the remainer of OT up and running (in other words we were played).
At this point I am not sure after all this time that I really care (I am
tired actually), but it would be interesting to get the true facts. On the
other hand it would be good to see that other people that fall into the same
circumstances as exOTers are treated more fairly. It will be a bonus if at
the end it works out for our group! I don"t really believe at this point at
the government will come through as they will be looking after their own
interest to keep costs down. With all that has happened I wouldn't be at all
surprised that program legally applies and exOTers end up getting ZERO.
I can't help but think about Labors position to have a simple insurance plan
that pays off without this bull shit. If they ever get their chance I hope
they consider how DOCA needs to be treated. No issue involving employment
should be this complicated or have as many side issues issues or loop holes.
At some point there has to be social responsiblity in running a company
(and also acting as an administrator). Too many of todays major business
issues are the result of these Big-5 consultants playing the system as if it
were an innocent card game. At the end of the day it is not a laughing
matters because these consultants are playing around with peoples lives. It
is a hard realisation to learn that they only consider a positive outcome
for the Grand Wazoos and themselves (company owners). And the sad thing is
that these people are generally well off anyway.
At the end of the day we must never support scum business practices. This
means we and the rest of society must expect to be treated ethically.
The world downturn in IT and telecom is largely due to risky business
practices conducted by these same category of geniuses. As a case in point,
just remember Accenture (Enron and many other screw ups). The only good
thing in the Accenture case that they were completly wiped off the face of
the earth (too many billions lost and people entire retirement funds made
worthless. Deloitte seems to be of the same mold and are willing to
implement any sort of loop hole regardless of its effect on people. How they
can conduct business with a straight face and sleep well at night will
require further study. There is nothing funny about being played....
- S
-------Original Message-------
From: otmushrooms@...
Date: Tuesday, 25 February 2003 10:14:53 AM
To: otmushrooms@...
Subject: RE: [otmushrooms] OT GEERS Update 22-2-2003
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]
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]
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]
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/
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]
Offline 
Send Email
