--- In otmushrooms@..., nick4mony <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In otmushrooms@..., nick4mony <no_reply@y...>
> > Leaflet content
> > ---------------
> > I am in the process of typing up a leaflet and I hope to put a text
> > version on here later today.
>
> Correction: later tomorrow (Tuesday).
The proposed brocure content is below. I would appreciate comments.
I'm also still looking for anyone to share the cost of printing. Any
takers?
Depending on the kind of brochure we print, it will have something
like the content further below.
Brochure printing costs vary from $17.10 to $58.00 per 200, depending
on coloured paper, folding, and quantity. The cheapest price involves
printing two per A4 sheet, then chopping them in half (guilotine).
All prices were for double-sided B&W printing on A4 paper. Some
suppliers were even more expensive, especially for small runs.
I designed the content for a 6-panel brochure. If I decide on a
half-A4 sheet, then I will use a cut-down version of panels 1, 2, 5, & 6.
Content below (a bit overdue, a bit messy because of text format)
Panel 1
--------------
YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE RIPPED OFF
Don't save the trees,
Don't save the whales,
SAVE YOURSELF
Insolvency law does not protect creditors
(cartoon of some type)
Panel 2
-------
The current insolvency law
Insolvency law is too complex.
Most creditors only deal with an insolvency process once in their
lifetime.
They deal with company directors and Administrators (or other
"professionals") who deal with the law day in – day out.
This is a recipe for deception and misinformation.
A Deed of Company Arrangement is very open to abuse – very often, it
is Phoenix Company fraud in disguise.
The reality is that Administrators are often chosen by the company
directors, so Administrators do things to suit them.
A word about real estate law
The real estate problem is similar – consumers, who go through the
procedure only a few times in their lifetime, dealing
with an industry that works with it seven days a week.
Again, this is a recipe for deception and misinformation.
For more information about real estate deceptions in Australia, see
http://jenman.com/
Panel 3
-------
What this campaign is about
We believe that insolvency law is too complex and allows unfair behaviour.
All creditors are having problems.
The odds are stacked against creditors, because of these things:
· For most, this is the first time they have dealt with an insolvency
· It is hard for creditors to find out their rights, and even harder
for them to enforce their rights
· Legal advice is extraordinarily expensive
Rogue directors engage in Phoenix Company fraud – a well known problem.
A Deed of Company arrangement isn't much different for creditors –
they don't get paid and the Directors continue their business.
The company can make huge profits in the future, and leave past
creditors in the dust.
This campaign is not about ...
It is not about getting a 100% payout in all cases.
It is not about preventing companies from failing, especially if they
have no genuine future.
The best thing to do here is to distribute the remaining assets
efficiently amongst creditors.
It is not about abolishing the concept of "limited liability", which
is a very important driver in this economy.
We focus on activity that is clearly evasive, fraudulent, or unfair.
Issues for employees
Employees are treated a bit differently to other creditors in a case
of insolvency – it seems they enjoy better protection than trade
creditors in a case of insolvency. However, there are several issues
that affect them badly:
· Their employer is usually the only source of income.
· It takes the Tax Office a very long time to credit Superannuation to
the right account, long after the Administrator has paid (if they pay
...).
· Many employees have large entitlements potentially due to them
because of their loyalty over many decades – which can all be put at
risk within weeks because of adverse events the employees have no
control over.
· The eligibility criteria for GEERS includes some requirements that
are not directly under the employees' control. Example: an employer
who doesn't call in an Administrator at all.
· The Deed of Company Arrangement, used when the employer is trading
out, has an effect on their eligibility for
GEERS.
Issues for Trade Creditors
Many trade creditors are small businesses who can ill-afford the money
lost to the insolvent debtor, let alone expensive legal advice.
Issues for the man in the street
The Tax Office is often a creditor – and they bear the brunt of much
unfair behaviour. Every other tax-payer is making up the shortfall.
You pay more tax because of biased Administrators.
Panel 5
-------
A simple law
Insolvency laws should not have so many twists and turns. We demand
these things:
· A simple definition of insolvency – making it easier for any
creditor owed an overdue debt to take action.
· A random or round-robin allocation of Administrators to insolvency
cases. That way, Directors have no control over
the appointment.
· Clearly defined options in an insolvency procedure.
· Any option that involves the company trading out must achieve 100%
payment of debts.
Stop the abuses
· Legal trickery
· Phoenix company fraud
· Deeds of Company Arrangement – often a different form of Phoenix
company fraud.
· Biased Administrators (or other professionals)
Panel 6
-------
Further Action
Find out what other creditors are going through ...
Join the OT Mushrooms email group
http://yahoogroups.com.au/groups/otmushrooms/
Contact the Tax Office Super Help-line (in Australia: ph 13 10 20),
and demand your super now.
Contact your M.P. or election candidates and let them know insolvency
law is an issue.
Write a letter to a newspaper
Contact the author, Nick Bishop
otmushrooms-owner@...
Volunteers always welcome
About OT Mushrooms
This email-based group was set up by Nick Bishop in response to the
(partial) collapse of Open Telecommunications. Most of the members
were ex-employees, but is now becoming a forum for all creditors who
have suffered at the hands of an insolvency.
----------------------
End of brocure content.
--- In otmushrooms, "tdnorthey" <tn@d...> wrote:
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/30/1091080441525.html
>
> "Tax Office gives super assurance
> July 30, 2004 - 8:49PM
>
> The Australian Tax Office (ATO) has assured workers they will not
> be left out of pocket by problems with the administration of
> compulsory superannuation payments.
The original source of this article is the news release at:
http://tinyurl.com/42yr2 or
http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.asp?
doc=/content/mr2004057.htm
I note that they use the phrase "small minority" when describing the
number of people affected - by their figures, that small minority is
over 2% of the workforce, which I hardly think is "small".
"Some employees affected by super processing difficulties
Printable version
Media Release - Nat 04/057
The Tax Office has assured employees and employers affected by
difficulties with the Super Guarantee processing system that they
will not be out of pocket.
Only a small minority of Australia's 9.6 million employees and
900,000 employers are affected by the system problems. Individuals
potentially affected are those with outstanding employer-funded
super entitlements and obligations.
Full financial compensation will be paid to the employees' super
accounts to cover interest foregone through delays in getting the
money into the funds. All the money is superannuation savings that
cannot be accessed until retirement.
A new computer system was put in place last December to administer
the new quarterly Super Guarantee legislation and to make direct
payments to super funds of employee entitlements.
We have had problems with the new system that have caused delays,
particularly with cases involving unpaid entitlements from past
years.
We are working to rectify the systems problems as quickly as
possible.
The new system has been effective in paying $45.2 million to 62,000
individuals in cases of employer-declared shortfalls or claimed
super vouchers since May.
However, more complex cases involving past years calculations are
being processed manually. Currently, $97 million in super recovered
for 193,000 employees is being processed this way. To date, $1.4
million has been paid directly to the funds.
Employers affected by Tax Office delays in calculating and
collecting the unpaid employee entitlements will have any penalties
waived so they too are not out of pocket.
The Tax Office has been working closely with the superannuation
industry to resolve issues of concern.
Where an employer fails to pay super to eligible employees, the Tax
Office collects entitlements and penalties on behalf of employees
and transfers the money to the employee's super fund.
CANBERRA
30 July 2004"
--- In otmushrooms@..., nick4mony <no_reply@y...>
> Leaflet content
> ---------------
> I am in the process of typing up a leaflet and I hope to put a text
> version on here later today.
Correction: later tomorrow (Tuesday).
You may be aware that an Election has been called for Sat 9 October
2004, and this is probably our last chance to make some noise about
the GEERS system and the general issue of workers not being paid.
Change of group focus
---------------------
I have decided to change the email group (OT Mushrooms) to be a more
general group, of appeal to all creditors in all insolvencies. This
means that I will advertise the group more generally, and that groups
of concerned creditors from other insolvencies may inhabit this list.
I will not rename this list (OT Mushrooms), nor change the private
openVictims list. I do not propose forming an incorporated body. The
group description has already been changed, and other material on the
group's Public File Archives will be updated over the coming week.
Of course, I do this knowing there is no chance that we will be paid
our entitlements - it's about election stink and preventing further
victims.
Campaign Plan
-------------
My basic plan is to hand out leaflets outside the venues of creditors'
meetings being held in Melbourne and Sydney, which summarises the
issues of importance to creditors, gives them the group's website
address (below) and asks them to let their election candidates know
that insolvency law is an issue. The group will be advertised like a
Self-Help group (similar to a Men's Group, Cancer group, etc)
I am seeking help with the campaigning process:
+ Suggestions for leaflet content (see below) or general approach
+ Funding to print leaflets (it costs about $300 per 1000)
+ Keeping an eye out for Creditors' meeting notices
+ Help to hand leaflets out at venues
+ Let your election candidates know it is an issue - make a phone
call or write a letter.
My reasons for this campaign style are:
+ Public presence - the act of handing out leaflets may get us (or
me) in the media.
+ Targeted - we are targeting those most at pain from insolvency issues
+ Follow-through - putting the group's address on the leaflet
provides some way for interested creditors to stay in the loop.
Leaflet content
---------------
I am in the process of typing up a leaflet and I hope to put a text
version on here later today. I have deliberately widened the target
group to all creditors, so that we may gain better traction with a
broader section of society. If you feel strongly that I am "letting
workers down", or have other issues for or against this, I welcome
your input - I might learn something!
You may have more comments once I post some draft content.
Miscellaneous
-------------
I had considered running a "mushroom soup kitchen" outside the various
venues, but the logistical effort involved is considerably more than a
simple leaflet drop - licensing/permits, pub.liab.insurance, getting
the gear, not blowing myself up, ...
However, I'm willing to hand out more packets of mushroom soup,
depending on funding, or even wearing a mushroom costume - if such a
thing can be found.
Can everyone please think about the kind of help you are willing to
give, and let me know? Thanks in advance,
Nick Bishop, grad.com @ nick4mony
-----
I've been to six different airports in Australia:
Brisbane, Melbourne, and four different versions of Sydney Airport.
-oOo-
Feedback from my last letter is that it's too long - by about 3:1.
They suggest about 100 words. Again, can we have some other letters,
either along similar lines, or squarely critisising GEERS.
Sir,
The workers of the furniture company (Lost job, pay, and marriage,
2/8) are not the only victims of GEERS. I was part of a group of 93
workers from a software company that also failed to gain a payout from
GEERS.
While I am disappointed that the Government wriggled out of paying us,
I see the real problem is that Corporations Law allows those running
companies to circumvent the requirements of the scheme.
Insolvency law is also too complex. The Government needs to remember
that most creditors only encounter such a procedure once in their lives.
Making insolvency law simple is the only true solution.
Nicholas Bishop, Vermont South (VIC).
-----
Nicholas Robert Bishop
<contact details>
Mob: 0438 366342
Ex-employee of Open Telecommunications Ltd, which entered voluntary
administration 12 July 2002, and executed a Deed of Company
Arrangement for the period Nov 2002 - 24 Dec 2003.
Group email (web site) http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
-oOo-
--- In otmushrooms@..., nick4mony <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10316278%255E2702,\
00.html
> Lost job, pay and marriage for nothing
> By Michael McKinnon, FOI editor
> 02aug04
This is a good time to write letters to the editor of this newspaper.
Consider these points:
1. Either write how the GEERS system fails people, or write more
generally about insolvency laws, or the Insolvency process.
2. You could state that you were left out of pocket.
3. You should name Open Tel, either publicly, or in amongst the
confidential contact information.
Email address letters @ theaustralian.com.au
fax (02) 9288 2824 or (02) 9288 3077
Not recommended: Postal
GPO Box 4162 Sydney NSW 2001
Letters require a full postal address, and day and night telephone
numbers.
Nick Bishop, grad.com @ nick4mony
-----
Contradictory statement: this vacuum cleaner sucks.
-oOo-
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10316278%255E2702,\
00.html
Lost job, pay and marriage for nothing
By Michael McKinnon, FOI editor
02aug04
FRANK Tanti has just about given up on the $15,000 of wages,
redundancy pay
and holiday leave owed by his former employer, a furniture company
that went
broke two years ago.
The collapse of the Melbourne-based business has cost Mr Tanti his
job, his
marriage and any faith in the Howard Government's General Employee
Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme.
The first indication of trouble came in April 2002 when wages started
being
paid late. Four months later employees were locked out and sacked, leaving
them about $240,000 out of pocket.
But their claims under the GEERS system were rejected because the company
was not insolvent, although the factory never reopened.
Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union industrial officer Dick Lowe
said the decision was appealed but the federal Employment Department,
which
manages GEERS, stood by its original position, forcing the union to take
legal action to put the company into liquidation.
"Fresh GEERS applications were submitted and again denied because the
matter
had been previously dealt with and the Employment Department's
decision was
final," Mr Lowe said.
He said the department was now reconsidering its decision.
Mr Tanti has since found work as a wood machinist but the loss of his
entitlements still haunts him.
"It put stress on my relationship and was a big part of my marriage
break-up," he said.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10316274%255E2702,\
00.html
Scheme short-changes workers $35.3m
By Michael McKinnon, FOI editor
02aug04
MORE than $35million is owed to workers who are waiting months to receive
money for unpaid wages and leave entitlements under a Howard government
scheme set up to protect employee rights after companies go broke.
The General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme was established in
2001 after the Prime Minister's rescue package paid out 100 per cent of
entitlements for sacked workers at National Textiles, chaired by John
Howard's brother Stan.
Department of Employment documents, obtained by The Australian using
Freedom
of Information laws, show the scheme's performance falls short of the
Government's promised target and that almost 4000 workers have been
short-changed, with one in five claimants still owed an average of
$9000 in
wages or leave entitlements.
The documents also reveal 38 per cent of claimants had to wait more
than 16
weeks to get money, with some waiting up to 56 weeks.
A spokesman for Federal Employment Minister Kevin Andrews said the GEERS
scheme was a safety net but the primary responsibility for
entitlements must
always remain with employers.
The spokesman said that more than 80 per cent of claimants receive 100 per
cent of their entitlements under GEERS.
But when announced on September 20, 2001, the then Minister for Employment
and Workplace Relations, Tony Abbott, promised "over 90 per cent of
workers
who lose their entitlements" would "receive 100 per cent of entitlements"
under the scheme.
Because GEERS does not pay 100 per cent of money owed from bankrupt
companies - redundancy payouts are capped at eight weeks - workers
were out
of pocket by a total of $35.3million at March 31 this year, documents
show.
Mr Andrews's spokesman said the Government had delivered more than
$200million in GEERS assistance to more than 33,000 Australian workers.
"For 13 years the Labor Government did nothing and provided no
assistance to
employees who lost their entitlements," he said.
The spokesman said GEERS was not designed to cover all employee
entitlements
in all circumstances.
He said GEERS payments were made in "a timely manner" but delays occurred
because of the need to gain information.
Opposition Workplace Relations spokesman Craig Emerson said a Latham
government would reform the GEERS scheme to cover 100 per cent of
entitlements, a move supported by the Australian Council of Trade Unions.
"The only people who have received their full entitlements from the Howard
Government are the employees of John Howard's brother Stan," said Dr
Emerson.
People,
Same again, for the tabloid, but note they don't run long letters.
Sir,
John Howard may be expressing support for families, but the current
Insolvency Laws are leaving many families in the ditch, unpaid and
unable to make use of the Government scheme to pay out workers in
failed companies.
Insolvency law is meant to deal with the situation where a company (or
individual) runs out of cash, and should be an attempt to deal with it
in the fairest way possible, without the process costing too much.
Australian insolvency law is far from that ideal. There is enormous
scope for unfair behaviour, and it costs far too much to run the
process of an insolvency.
I was made redundant from a software development company along with
nearly 100 others, with the company unable to pay the redundancy or
wage payouts. I would have accepted the result if the Administrators
had liquidated the company, distributed the assets to the creditors,
and sent us all home. After all, there is only a fixed amount of
assets available; or is there?
Instead, the Administrators decided to trade out and used a stunning
array of legal tricks to limit the amount we were paid, and to make it
much more difficult for us to exercise our rights. They exploited a
loophole in the Corporations Law, giving us important information only
one day prior to a meeting, where the law requires five days' notice.
When they found extra investment funding, they used an unusual legal
trick to make it very difficult for creditors to vote on receiving
extra benefit from the extra funding.
Their legal tricks also violated the policy of the Government payout
scheme (known as GEERS), which meant that they refused our claim.
The end result, now, is that the employees and creditors have been
paid less than half, and the company is now free to become a runaway
success, with no further obligations to these creditors.
The other end result is 100 families unwilling to vote for Howard,
unless he changes the insolvency laws to improve vague definitions,
remove the opportunities for unfair behavour, and to implement a
simple concept: if the company keeps going, creditors get paid in full.
Nicholas Bishop, Vermont South
-----
(contact details).
People,
I plan to write letters to the editors 2-3 times a week to each paper.
It will help if other people write letters, as well, describing their
feelings about the insolvency of Open Tel.
I have concentrated on the law itself, because almost everything else
derives from the law.
Here are the contents of what I sent to the Sydney Morning Herald this
morning. The Age is almost identical. You will note the length of
the letter ... I'm trying for the single Long Letter Slot they run per
day.
Sir,
John Howard is blowing his trumpet, showing his support for families
in Australia. However, almost 100 families were left in the ditch by
Australia's insolvency laws, and the Government scheme that was meant
to pay out workers in failed companies (GEERS), from a single
corporate collapse.
Insolvency law is meant to deal with the situation where a company (or
individual) runs out of cash, and should be an attempt to prevent
insolvency in the first place, or reduce its impact, and deal with it
in the fairest way possible, without the process costing too much.
Australian insolvency law is far from that ideal. It has no
provisions to prevent insolvency, there is enormous scope for unfair
behaviour, and it costs far too much to run the process of an
insolvency. Directors can prevent GEERS (government) payouts, either
for convenience or possibly vindictiveness.
I was made redundant by the Administrators of a Sydney based software
development company nearly two years ago, along with nearly 100
others, because the company had run out of cash. I would have accepted
the result if the Administrators had said there was no future,
liquidated the company, distributed the assets to the creditors, and
sent us all home. After all, there is only a fixed amount of assets
available; or is there?
Instead, the Administrators (with crucial major creditors) decided to
trade out. This is called a Deed of Company Arrangement. In this case,
the pool of money available for creditors is NOT fixed, but keeps
increasing as time goes on, if the company becomes profitable again.
We are all of the opinion that the company then has a responsibility
to pay us in full, even if it takes some time to do so. Creditors
already have forfeited the right to be paid on time, and to collect
interest on what they are owed. They should not then put up with
being paid cents in the dollar, then see the company becoming a
runaway success in two years time.
After the redundancies, the administrators then tried a number of
legal tricks to disadvantage the employee creditors who were made
redundant:
- they tried, unsuccessfully, to deny us any redundancy payouts at all,
- they successfully reduced our redundancy payouts to those
stipulated in our Award, rather than the company's more generous policy,
- they incorrectly calculated payouts for certain employees whose
notice period took them over another year's service, but backed down,
- they gave us crucial information only one working day prior to an
important meeting, exploiting a loophole in the Corporations Law
requiring five days' notice
- presented the Deed as a fait accompli, with no genuine discussion
of issues or alternatives
- altered the normal priorities of creditors (usually the employees
come near the front), which violated the Government's policy on the
GEERS (payout) scheme
- when the company struck even more trouble, stayed silent.
- when extra investment funding was found, took unusual steps to
terminate the Deed as quickly as possible, meaning there wasn't enough
time for creditors to organise a vote to get some benefit from the
extra funding.
The Directors were also up to their own tricks:
- they arranged it so they wouldn't lose (some of) their investment
in the company, or their homes - using unregistered secured charges,
- some evidence exists that they knew the Deed they proposed would
violate the Government's policy on the GEERS (payout) scheme,
- they participated in the unusual arrangement to terminate the Deed
quickly, after the investment funding was found.
The other major problem faced by our group was the cost of legal
advice - figures of $10,000 for some simple advice, or $20,000 for
some simple legal action. This is because of the complexity and
vagueness of Insolvency Law. A similar story applies to the cost of
the Administration itself, which sometimes uses up all the assets,
leaving nothing for creditors.
We see the following problems with the current insolvency laws:
- Complexity, loopholes and anomolies (driving up costs)
- Vague definitions of insolvency, discriminatory and oppressive
behaviour, and other important concepts,
- Very few restrictions on a Deed of Company Arrangement,
- No recognition of the GEERS (payout) scheme within Insolvency Law.
- Employees confused by information and procedures not tailored to
them, although the priority they have in a Liquidation is noted,
- ASIC (the corporate policeman) unwilling to take on small-scale cases.
We call on the Prime Minister and Treasurer to view the submissions on
insolvency laws lodged by smaller creditors, and act to remove the
opportunity for unfair behaviour and other legal tricks - a good start
would be to slash its complexity.
We also want a simple concept implemented: if the company keeps going,
creditors get paid in full.
You will have the votes of at least 100 families if you do so.
Nicholas Bishop, Vermont South (Vic)
-----
Contact details are required, but not copied to this post. On your
letters, state your full name, address, and daytime & evening numbers
(I generally give a mobile number).
People,
Super is not the only thing the tax office is dragging the chain on.
It took me 8+ months to get a refund on the up-front election I made
on my options. It came through about 3 weeks ago.
If you are still waiting for a refund, then contact me privately, and
I can supply a useful contact in the tax office.
If you made an up-front election in relation to the OT options you
received during your employment, and if these options lapse
unexercised, you are able to apply for a refund on the tax paid on a
s139E election.
You do this by submitting a request for amendment of the tax return
that contained the s139E election, except the usual time-limits for
amendments do not apply for this type of amendment request.
While it took them 8+ months, they were good, in that they rang me at
work every 4 weeks to explain the situation. They did volunteer that
there was a legal issue to do with whether the law said you could seek
a refund on ALL the options, or only the ones which were FORFEITED (as
in to say, options that had not vested when you were made redundant,
for example). Eventually, they ruled in favour of ALL the options.
This agrees with the explanation given by a partner in PWC
(accountants) in Sydney, who said "It doesn't matter if you simply
didn't like the look of the options - you still get a refund on a
s139E election"
Nick Bishop, grad.com @ nick4mony
Mobile 0438 366342
-----
Actions speak louder than words. Screaming is an action.
-oOo-
I spoke to the ATO on 21 May asking when we would get our super. The news
is pretty much the same.
They are very busy on the phones fielding calls about Super co-contributions
so it is hard to get to talk to someone. However they do take your number
and call back (in my case, the next day).
The computer system that would allow them to transfer SGC payments to our
super funds is not yet in service and is expected to be "at the end of May".
They still cannot tell you anything about your SGC amounts.
ATO do not pay interest on SGC payments delayed by ATO inaction. You may
request compensation by writing to them, detailing dates and amounts paid
etc, demonstrating disadvantage by providing evidence of the income and
growth your SGC payment would have made in your super fund for the period in
question (based on the income of your super fund over that period). It
would appear to be easier to do this once the payment is made so you can
actually determine the loss.
Write to
Australian Taxation Office
Superannuation Section
PO Box 277
World Trade Centre VIC 8005
I think a letter to your local member is appropriate as well.
Or put in a job application to work at the Mitsubishi engine factory in
Adelaide to ensure you receive something from the govt.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Northey" <tn@...>
To: <otmushrooms@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 12:41 PM
Subject: [otmushrooms] Status of SGC payments under the deed
> Anyone heard anything about super owed under the deed from ATO yet? I
> haven't.
>
> It hasn't magically appeared in my super fund either.
>
> I just checked on the ATO Super Seeker on-line superannuation search at
> http://www.ato.gov.au/super/content.asp?doc=/content/33301.htm
>
> and it said:
>
> Lost Members Register No match found
> Tax Office Records No match found
>
> I called the ATO on 131020 and they said they are (still) transferring to
a
> new computer system (it was expected to be up by February but now they
> expect it up in 2-3 weeks). They said the money is probably there as a
> credit on the Deloitte account (but they are not permitted to check that
for
> me) and that it can't be distributed until the new system is up.
>
> When the money is distributed, it should automagically appear in your most
> active super fund. If you want to make sure it goes to the right fund,
you
> can contact your super fund and tell them there is some SGC money coming
> through soon and they will organise with ATO to make sure it goes into
that
> fund. Otherwise you don't have to do anything. If you call ATO, they
> cannot tell you what your most active super fund is, because that is on
the
> new computer system.
>
> rgds
> Tom
>
>
>
> 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
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
>
> 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/
>
>
My company may be looking for someone to do some casual VB/MS Access
Programing as a contractor. If you know someone with experience and skills
in VB and MS Access please let me know.
regards
Paul
p.s.davis@...
The rats abandon the sinking ship .........
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/05/1083635208576.html
--- In otmushrooms@..., Elizabeth Fullerton
<laslig@o...> wrote:
> caught a quick glimpse of a news heading in my lift, can't find
anything in the
> papers today (but my newspaper searching abilities are pretty
crap) - but the docs
> are up on the asx. wayne's sold down to 9% - the thing in the lift
said it was at
> 1c/share.
caught a quick glimpse of a news heading in my lift, can't find anything in the
papers today (but my newspaper searching abilities are pretty crap) - but the
docs
are up on the asx. wayne's sold down to 9% - the thing in the lift said it was
at
1c/share.
I rang the ATO last week to ask when the OT money would be paid into my
super fund. They could not tell me, which I thought was very poor.
I've since written them a letter asking for this information but I don't
expect a reply anytime soon. I was told by them in a phone call in
January that you could make sure the money went into the right fund by
sending them a Fund Nomination Form, which I did.
Regards
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Northey [mailto:tn@...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 1:42 PM
To: otmushrooms@...
Subject: [otmushrooms] Status of SGC payments under the deed
Anyone heard anything about super owed under the deed from ATO yet? I
haven't.
It hasn't magically appeared in my super fund either.
I just checked on the ATO Super Seeker on-line superannuation search at
http://www.ato.gov.au/super/content.asp?doc=/content/33301.htm
and it said:
Lost Members Register No match found
Tax Office Records No match found
I called the ATO on 131020 and they said they are (still) transferring
to a
new computer system (it was expected to be up by February but now they
expect it up in 2-3 weeks). They said the money is probably there as a
credit on the Deloitte account (but they are not permitted to check that
for
me) and that it can't be distributed until the new system is up.
When the money is distributed, it should automagically appear in your
most
active super fund. If you want to make sure it goes to the right fund,
you
can contact your super fund and tell them there is some SGC money coming
through soon and they will organise with ATO to make sure it goes into
that
fund. Otherwise you don't have to do anything. If you call ATO, they
cannot tell you what your most active super fund is, because that is on
the
new computer system.
rgds
Tom
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
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
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/
ATO and DDT obviously work from the same management structure...
So does OT, I believe.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Northey [mailto:tn@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 17 March 2004 1:42 PM
> To: otmushrooms@...
> Subject: [otmushrooms] Status of SGC payments under the deed
>
> Anyone heard anything about super owed under the deed from ATO yet? I
> haven't.
>
> It hasn't magically appeared in my super fund either.
>
> I just checked on the ATO Super Seeker on-line superannuation search at
> http://www.ato.gov.au/super/content.asp?doc=/content/33301.htm
>
> and it said:
>
> Lost Members Register No match found
> Tax Office Records No match found
>
> I called the ATO on 131020 and they said they are (still) transferring to
> a
> new computer system (it was expected to be up by February but now they
> expect it up in 2-3 weeks). They said the money is probably there as a
> credit on the Deloitte account (but they are not permitted to check that
> for
> me) and that it can't be distributed until the new system is up.
>
> When the money is distributed, it should automagically appear in your most
> active super fund. If you want to make sure it goes to the right fund,
> you
> can contact your super fund and tell them there is some SGC money coming
> through soon and they will organise with ATO to make sure it goes into
> that
> fund. Otherwise you don't have to do anything. If you call ATO, they
> cannot tell you what your most active super fund is, because that is on
> the
> new computer system.
>
> rgds
> Tom
>
>
>
> 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
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
>
> 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/
Anyone heard anything about super owed under the deed from ATO yet? I
haven't.
It hasn't magically appeared in my super fund either.
I just checked on the ATO Super Seeker on-line superannuation search at
http://www.ato.gov.au/super/content.asp?doc=/content/33301.htm
and it said:
Lost Members Register No match found
Tax Office Records No match found
I called the ATO on 131020 and they said they are (still) transferring to a
new computer system (it was expected to be up by February but now they
expect it up in 2-3 weeks). They said the money is probably there as a
credit on the Deloitte account (but they are not permitted to check that for
me) and that it can't be distributed until the new system is up.
When the money is distributed, it should automagically appear in your most
active super fund. If you want to make sure it goes to the right fund, you
can contact your super fund and tell them there is some SGC money coming
through soon and they will organise with ATO to make sure it goes into that
fund. Otherwise you don't have to do anything. If you call ATO, they
cannot tell you what your most active super fund is, because that is on the
new computer system.
rgds
Tom
A sharp eyed work colleague picked this up.
http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/12/1078594535432.html
Open Tel posts FY net loss of $3.645m
Sydney
March 12, 2004
Telecommunications software company Open Telecommunications yesterday
said 2004 would be the start of profitable activities, after posting a
net loss of $3.645 million for the year ending December 31, 2003.
Chairman Wayne Passlow said the company was now well positioned to
take advantage of a recovery in the telco market.
"The company is confident that 2004 will see a turnaround in our
fortunes, and be the start of profitable activities for the coming
years," Passlow said in a statement.
Open Telecommunications re-listed on the Australian Stock Exchange on
February 3, after raising $13 million.
The company suffered badly after the tech stock crash in 2000 and went
into voluntary administration in April 2002, when its shares were
trading at 5.1 cents.
Passlow said the company was this year seeking to have more stable
business, without major new investment in products and technology.
"During 2004, the company will be investigating new ways to package
our existing skills and technology to bring new packaged products to
market," Passlow said.
"As many major corporations move to increase their own involvement in
internal telecommunications facilities, there are emerging
opportunities for OT products and services to be repackaged and sold
to these corporations."
The Deed of Company arrangement was fully paid out by December 11, 2003.
During the year, Passlow said the company also managed to dedicate
significant resources to business development work.
"We are confident that this investment in business development in 2003
will provide new customers in both business divisions in 2004,"
Passlow said.
Open Telecommunication's two divisions are the OSS division, based on
the openCI product suite, and the switching division, based on the
Softswitch and Intelligent Network product suites.
No dividend was paid.
AAP
I am changing my email address. For anyone wishing to email me
privately, the new address is (swap before use)
grad.com @ nick4mony
The old email address ( bigfoot.com @ nick4mony ) will be disconnected
on 1 Sept 2004, but I recommend you update your records now.
There is no change to the List Owner's addresses,
yahoogroups.com.au @ otmushrooms-owner
@ openvictims-owner .
Nick Bishop
-----
ERROR: Water detected in drive A:
-oOo-
A little overdue ...
There are 3 threads of conversation in this summary
Threads continued from previous summaries, out of a possible 23
6. Jokes
18. Superannuation issues
There is one new thread.
24. Christmas Greetings
Thread: 18
Subject: Superannuation issues
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:08:30 +1100
From: "Paul S Davis" <p.s.davis@...>
Subject: Payment of OT Super
From DTT:
>Can you tell me when the ATO will lodge the proof of debt for
>the OT super?
The ATO has already lodged their proof of debt for Superannuation
Guarantee Charge. They have been paid the first and interim dividend
and will receive the second and final dividend distribution at the
same time as employees.
Regards,
Sallie Muir
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
==========
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:45:04 +1100
From: "Paul S Davis" <p.s.davis@...>
Subject: Re: Payment of OT Super
From DTT:
>Who is the contact at ATO whom we should contact about the
>timing of the payment of the super into our super funds?
As I understand it, work gets allocated within the relevant division
of the ATO as it is received, so there is no specific contact person
that I can refer you to. I would anticipate that the process could
take some time but am really not sure. The ATO will make contact with
you in due course, but if you want further information, I would
suggest calling the general Superannuation Infoline (Ph: 13 10 20).
Hopefully they can be a bit more specific for you with respect to the
timing.
Regards,
Sallie Muir
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Thread: 6
Subject: Jokes
Email footers:
-----
This comment was brought to you by the letter F (for Friday) and the
number 0.075 (about 50% over the legal alcohol limit for driving).
-----
If you buy a pack of Continental Chinese Chicken cup-a-soup and open
the pack, you will see the dot-matrix printing on the sachets saying
"CHINESE CHICK"
along with a date. Do the Asian Feminists know about this one?
-oOo-
Other funnies:
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:28:52 +0800
From: "Glenn Shirley" <GSHIRLEY@I...>
Subject: Here's an appropriate summation of recent events!
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20031220.html
[ Note from Nick. Unfortunately, this link is now dead/expired.]
==========
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:11:00 -0000
From: nick4mony
Subject: Re: OT DoCA terminated
--- In openvictims@..., "tdnorthey" <tn@d...> wrote:
> According to OT's ASX announcement, the OT DoCA has been terminated
> as of 24 Dec. The amount payable under the deed has been paid and
> presumably the creditors trust has been established.
Visions of the Deed Terminator 2 haunt me ...
==========
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:27:36 +1100
From: "GERLACH, Steven" <steven.gerlach@s...>
--- In openvictims@..., "nick4mony" wrote:
> There's also a bit of fun to all this activity (and I'm fairly
certain
> that Steve also has a bit of fun with this, too)
Nick, you gotta laugh...or you'd cry.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Thread: 24
Subject: Christmas Greetings
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 20:03:21 +1100
From: "Paul S Davis" <psdavis@...>
Subject: Christmas Greetings
Hi all,
I just want to wish everyone a very happy Christmas and safe New Year.
It has been a very frustrating year, with lots learnt about the media,
Government departments and Corp Law but not many results. The first
divided has been a welcome relief with the second to come "soon" but
it took so long.
Thank you to all those who have worked hard to helped raised the
profile of our case in many different ways.
all the best,
Paul Davis
After the Shareholders' meeting in November (the one that approved the
$10m investment funding), we attempted to team up with the Tax Office
to increase our payments by forcing a Creditors' meeting to vary the Deed.
Our proposal was to increase employee payments to 100%, restore
priority, and double the payment (to 40%) to Ordinary Unsecured
Creditors. Our estimate was that we had about three months to
persuade the Tax Office to act.
The plan was to have the Tax Office (who are owed more than 10%) lodge
a notice under 445F which would compel the Administrators to hold a
meeting, and use the extra payment to Ordinary Unsecured Creditors to
persuade them to vote in favour of the change. We were in the process
of signing and sending a letter to the Tax Office when Deloitte's
Notice of Meeting came out.
As most of you probably guess, the Tax Office take their time, and the
time ran out three-and-a-half weeks later on the 24 Dec 2003. But we
did make sure to pester them occasionally until that date.
In effect, we saw a good opportunity to increase our payout, but then
Deloitte (or OT) made it a lot harder by giving us a lot less time to
act. Like some of the other things done by Deloitte, it was a dirty
legal trick.
Nick Bishop, bigfoot.com @ nick4mony
-----
... The reason why you never see tiny dogs (common in South Yarra) in
the outer suburbs, is that eveything is so spread out that the dog
would die of exhaustion before it reached the front gate. The outer
suburban dweller therefore chooses a large dog, but this choice
results in an unfortunate side-effect often seen in outer suburban
streets: the dog taking the owner for a walk (and not the other way
around).
-oOo-
Apperantly employees of Swish have had similar GEERS experience as we did.
Does anyone know a Swish ex-employee who waiting on GEERS? Please e-mail me
on p.s.davis@....
regards
Paul
There was a bounced message from dfr.webmaster at cox.net to both
groups on 2 December 2003.
An enquiry sent to that address bounced. If you know anything, let me
know.
Nick Bishop
-----
The average outer suburban home contains four bedrooms, a kitchen
(often used for eating), an informal dining room (sometimes used for
eating), a formal dining room (rarely used for eating), a lounge room,
a rumpus room, and two bathrooms (because the average suburban bladder
cannot hold on for the time it gets to the single bathroom at the
wrong end of the house, if there was only one). Most homes also have
a six-car garage, because the previous owners had four kids. The
current owner usually lives alone because divorce rates have hit an
all-time high. Each house looks like the next 20 houses in the
street, and takes up the space used by a 100-apartment building in
South Yarra.
Thirty years ago, the outer suburbs were all sheep paddocks, and sheep
don't require public transport. The reason there's still no public
transport there today is that the government treats the outer suburban
residents like sheep.
-oOo-
People,
I received an email from Sallie Muir a few hours ago (Wednesday 2pm).
As well as addressing the specifics of my situation, she made a
number of interesting points which some people here may find useful.
She does not specifically say how the unremitted April/May car
payments are being handled, but if you have such a situation, make
sure that Deloitte knows about it, because they don't automatically
find out.
If anything below leads you to change your claim, get onto it pronto,
because today was the deadline.
The following are extracts from that email, with highly personal
information removed.
++++++++++ From Sallie Muir ++++++++++
I confirm that your claim for expenses was admitted as an employee
claim
(as opposed to an unsecured claim), to be paid out of the employee
fund.
This is consistent with the way we have treated all other 'approved
employee expense claims' for expenses incurred on behalf of the company
but not reimbursed as part of the last monthly pay run.
A final dividend is calculated to ensure that additional claims and
other claims, such as yours, that require adjustment are effectively
"equalised" to ensure that the total dividend received (interims and
final) are calculated on the final list of admitted claims.
Salary sacrifices for the month of June 2002 have been ignored for the
purposes of the payment of dividends. That is to say that, salaries
have been grossed up to their 'normal wage' and paid as wages.
A special circumstance may arise where a particular employee has had
payments deducted from their salary and not remitted to, a lease
company
for instance, for more than one month. This is problematic in most
instances as payroll systems generally only record the deduction and
not
the remittance (except in the case of superannuation) and we must rely
on information from the employee indicating that a lease company has
advised them that a lease payment has not been made by the company for
more than one month. We usually deal with such issues on an individual
basis as they are not common.
Contractors are unsecured creditors. Their claims have been treated as
unsecured claims regardless of the nature of the debt owed.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Bishop [mailto:nick4mony@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 31 December 2003 5:37 PM
> To: Muir, Sallie (AU - Sydney)
> Subject: OpenTel - Expenses claim
>
> Dear Sallie,
>
> I see that my claim against the Employee Fund has been
> increased
> by the claim for expenses that I had. However, the amount of
> increase is not correct.
>
> [There needs to be a second increase to bring it to the exact
> amount]
> [discussion on how to achieve the effect of paying about 44% of the
> amount of second increase all at once, and paying 22% on the rest of
> my claim.]
>
> *****
>
> This illustrates the difficulty that some people had
> interpreting the instructions, and knowing how to claim:
> a) super,
> b) expenses
> c) salary sacrifices for cars or super or health insurance
> d) expenses if you were a contractor
> e) expenses if you were an employee who had resigned.
>
> It was never explained (until that phone call) that expense
> reimbursements would be claimed against the Employees Fund.
> The
> letter to me dated 1 August 2003 implied that these were not
> dealt with as employee entitlements.
>
> An email from Andrew Needham Fri, 29 Aug 2003 17:41:20 +1000
> simply noted "Your claim for unreimbursed travel expenses is
> noted" without specifying the amount, and without including it
> in the amended claim.
>
> While I don't have the problem of Salary Sacrifice for cars or
> anything else, I would be interested in a brief summary of how
> that is being dealt with.
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 ==========
Hi,
For those who have difficulties with the email list(s) during the
Christmas period (and new members for openVictims, etc), just email me.
I will be available during all working days (29,30,31 Dec &
2,5,6,7,8,9 Jan).
bigfoot.com @ nick4mony
or
yahoogroups.com.au @ otmushrooms-owner
Merry Xmas and a happy New Year (or for Wayne and the Administrators:
a happy 5 months and 6 days which is 43% of a new year).
Nick Bishop
-----
Missing from Windows:
Start > Programs > Accessories > Remove Bugs
-oOo-
This is applicable to all employees in Australia, whether employed at
OT or anywhere else.
The date of 27 Nov 2003 was the latest possible date by which your
employer must give you an explicit statement of what has been paid to
your super fund, your membership number, and the contact details for
that fund (most OT statements would mention MLC as the fund). This
covers the period from 1 July to 30 Sept 2003, which should have been
paid by 28 Oct 2003.
However, I understand that OT have not made the payment as required.
The advice commonly found in payslips is usually not sufficient for
the purpose, as the money has not left the employer's hands when the
payslips are generated.
This is the first time such a statement has been required by law.
If you have not got a statement, make some enquiries.
Nick Bishop, bigfoot.com @ nick4mony
-----
Ultimately, cash flow is the lifeblood of any organisation. We know
from experience that 90 per cent of businesses that fail, do so
because they run out of cash.
-- Christine Christian, CEO, D&B Australia & New Zealand.
-oOo-
Hi People,
Got back from the Gold Coast last week. Thanks to Tom for sending me
the meeting results to my phone. Anyway, the full result for motion 1 was
114 - Yes
51 - No
Motion carried.
(from Paul Davis's email).
Motion 2 (the renumeration) was also carried.
The dividend was also declared at 22.22741 cents in the dollar. Most
employees should have received their cheques by now, and in a break
away from tradition, the various components that make up your cheque
have been clearly laid out.
Even the super situation has been explained quite clearly. Thanks to
Paul Davis for prodding both the ATO and Deloittes over the issue of
super.
Nick Bishop, bigfoot.com @ nick4mony
-----
Position vacant - Suicide bomber.
Previous experience essential.
-oOo-
If you have issues with the operation of the forums please contact me on
p.s.davis@....
regards
Paul Davis
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Offline 
Send Email
