Late on Friday I received an email message from Kath Walters, the
Accounting Editor at BRW (the Business Review Weekly - a magazine). I
spoke with her for about an hour on Sunday.
There wasn't much opportunity to involve anyone else, so I ran with it
on my own.
She has written some articles in the past about how Company Directors
abuse insolvency laws. She wants to liven this up again, and give some
publicity to the 'Unpaid Mushrooms' group. She was quite interested in
the fact that I (or we) have put this group together as a way for
creditors to lend moral support to each other, share ideas, and avoid
the feelings of isolation that many of them (particularly employees)
feel within the insolvency process.
She states that she will publish a short article about the group, and
she will run the contact details for the group - not normally done,
but given that we are non-profit (and indeed non-revenue raising), she
is willing to do this. This article will hit the streets on Thursday,
so I'm spending time getting the Public File Archives up-to-date, and
uploading files of more general interest (both to the Public File
Archives and to the Yahoo Files section).
She indicates she will come back to us and study the issue in more
depth in future articles.
This is a good strike - let's hope we get some new blood into the group.
Nick Bishop, grad.com @ nick4mony
-----
Swap the email address before use
-----
Would you like a crash with that?
-oOo-
I handed out leaflets outside the alleged location of a creditors'
meeting today in the CBD.
About 25 minutes prior, I paid a cheeky visit and found they were only
expecting about 10 creditors!!
The exercise therefore turned out to be handing leaflets to the
public, although I think I got 3 or 4 (symptoms: they are looking
along the street at the street numbers).
I'll change the way I find out about creditors' meetings.
Nick
-----
In times of universal deceit[1], telling the truth becomes a
revolutionary act.
[1] = and in the real estate industry
-oOo-
--- In otmushrooms@..., "David Letcher"
<david_letcher@a...> wrote:
> Nick,
>
> The brochuire starts out well, ie; "Your about to be ripped off",
but the
> creditors you plan to give this to will expect you to tell them how
to avoid
> that problem. You only state they should change laws (not helpful
to them).
I wasn't entirely convinced that I could say anything in the leaflet
that would assist them immediately - once you turn up to the first or
second creditors' meetings there is not a lot you can do to change
course.
However, there are a couple of things that come to mind along the
lines of "What can I do in the meeting?" By deleting the "Stop the
abuses" section I can make room for it. I can certainly put expanded
information on the web site, which was already under way, and Version
1 is almost finished.
> You need to assist them to gain and keep their interest.
True. For my next print run, I will consider the balance between
these three things:
+ Assisting creditors now,
+ Political pressure,
+ New blood for the group.
I must admit the last two are fairly prominent in the current leaflet.
> Remember, for most, self-interest will be
> their only motivating factor here.
I also assume there will be a few redundant employees or small
business types who will be sufficiently ruined by the procedure that
they will hound the Government. Remember there are a lot of marriages
that break up, a few deportations, and lots of other adverse side effects.
Thanks for the comments (and your thinking), Dave.
*****
The PTUA model of operation is strictly political pressure - they took
a deliberate decision not to go for member services - such as
discounted metcards, or timetables. They refer people requiring legal
advice to the CLCV or pro-bono lawyers and leave it at that.
The main reason is it takes a lot of cost and energy to run these
types of services, and other organisations that have attempted to do
so have gone down the gurgler in terms of political clout.
The thing we have in common is that we are pushing ideas across to the
Government.
Having said all that, I do note that the only real thing being
proposed by Dave is some "self-help" information, which costs nothing,
apart from the cost of reprinting brochures (once I run out in about a
week's time).
Nick Bishop, grad.com @ nick4mony
-----
Actions speak louder than words. Screaming is an action
-oOo-
Nick,
The brochuire starts out well, ie; "Your about to be ripped off", but the
creditors you plan to give this to will expect you to tell them how to avoid
that problem. You only state they should change laws (not helpful to them).
That sort of implies it's too late. You should give suggestions on how to
avoid being ripped off before at all.
If I had been given this I would expect a series of bullets points on things
to;
o look out for,
o ideas on selecting/rejecting the company choice of Administrators,
o why the company choice is not in my best interest (you do cover this but
not as part of a set of tips)
o who to select as an employee creditor rep and why.
o where to get further information.
You need to assist them to gain and keep their interest. You can then
follow up with a link to the web site that will go into details about;
o what happens next;
o how and why they will be voting,
o what is a deed, and why they are good/bad
o how they are/are not protected by current laws
o etc, etc.
I'm sure many other ex-staff will have ideas on what should be done and why.
I just think you need to give them a useful summary in the brochure and them
point them to your web site. Remember, for most, self-interest will be
their only motivating factor here.
-----Original Message-----
From: otmushrooms@...
[mailto:otmushrooms@...]
Sent: Monday, 27 September 2004 8:20 PM
To: otmushrooms@...
Subject: [Unpaid Mushrooms] Digest Number 152
There is 1 message in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Leaflet content (replacement message)
From: nick4mony
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 02:45:55 -0000
From: nick4mony
Subject: Leaflet content (replacement message)
People,
This leaflet is half an A4 sheet, double-sided, ie A5. I have 200
printed on yellow paper. The main difference between the last message
and this message is the authorisations at the bottom.
You will note there are no employee issues described on the leaflet -
it gets a bit crowded to try to squeeze issues of GEERS and Super onto
the leaflet, in a way which demands further drilling down.
However, I am making a web page that will have these issues in more
details, titled Issues for Employees and Creditors, to be linked
direct from the Unpaid Mushrooms home page.
You will also note that despite the renaming, the URL and email
address will stay the same - it will be quite disruptive to change these.
SIDE 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
The current insolvency law
Insolvency law is too complex.
Most creditors only deal with an insolvency process once in their
lifetime.
It is too hard for creditors to know their rights, even harder for
them to enforce their rights, and too easy for Administrators (or
other professionals) to take advantage of this.
A Deed of Company Arrangement is very open to abuse - very often, it
is Phoenix Company fraud in disguise.
The company can make huge profits in the future, and leave past
creditors in the dust.
The reality is that Administrators are often chosen by the company
directors, so Administrators do things to suit them.
Help us change insolvency law
SIDE 2
======
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.
+ 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)
Further Action
Find out what other creditors are going through ...
Browse or join the Unpaid Mushrooms email group
http://yahoogroups.com.au/groups/otmushrooms/
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 Unpaid Mushrooms
Nick Bishop set up this email-based group, originally named OT
Mushrooms, in response to the (partial) collapse of Open
Telecommunications. With this group, we broke the isolation that
redundant employees and other creditors often face.
This group is now open to all creditors to discuss insolvency issues.
Join, or just browse.
Authorised by Nicholas Bishop, Suite 1104, 530 Lt Collins St,
Melbourne 3000.
Printed by Busy Bee, 6/456 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne 3004.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members of
this group) can read this message in the archives.
Useful links:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.769 / Virus Database: 516 - Release Date: 24/09/2004
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.769 / Virus Database: 516 - Release Date: 24/09/2004
People,
This leaflet is half an A4 sheet, double-sided, ie A5. I have 200
printed on yellow paper. The main difference between the last message
and this message is the authorisations at the bottom.
You will note there are no employee issues described on the leaflet -
it gets a bit crowded to try to squeeze issues of GEERS and Super onto
the leaflet, in a way which demands further drilling down.
However, I am making a web page that will have these issues in more
details, titled Issues for Employees and Creditors, to be linked
direct from the Unpaid Mushrooms home page.
You will also note that despite the renaming, the URL and email
address will stay the same - it will be quite disruptive to change these.
SIDE 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
The current insolvency law
Insolvency law is too complex.
Most creditors only deal with an insolvency process once in their
lifetime.
It is too hard for creditors to know their rights, even harder for
them to enforce their rights, and too easy for Administrators (or
other professionals) to take advantage of this.
A Deed of Company Arrangement is very open to abuse - very often, it
is Phoenix Company fraud in disguise.
The company can make huge profits in the future, and leave past
creditors in the dust.
The reality is that Administrators are often chosen by the company
directors, so Administrators do things to suit them.
Help us change insolvency law
SIDE 2
======
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.
+ 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)
Further Action
Find out what other creditors are going through ...
Browse or join the Unpaid Mushrooms email group
http://yahoogroups.com.au/groups/otmushrooms/
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 Unpaid Mushrooms
Nick Bishop set up this email-based group, originally named OT
Mushrooms, in response to the (partial) collapse of Open
Telecommunications. With this group, we broke the isolation that
redundant employees and other creditors often face.
This group is now open to all creditors to discuss insolvency issues.
Join, or just browse.
Authorised by Nicholas Bishop, Suite 1104, 530 Lt Collins St,
Melbourne 3000.
Printed by Busy Bee, 6/456 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne 3004.
--- In otmushrooms@..., Elizabeth Fullerton
<laslig@o...> wrote:
> how about (1) just plain "mushrooms"
>
> or (2) "insolvency mushrooms"
> (3) "administration mushrooms"
> (4) "screwed mushrooms"
> (5) "militant mushrooms"
I've decided to stick with "Unpaid Mushrooms" - it conveys the (new)
group membership with the minimum of fuss.
Some of the others can be ruled out fairly quickly.
(5) ... No-one is being particularly militant around here
(3) ... a bit difficult on the toungue. Don't forget about
Receiverships and direct liquidations as well.
(1) ... Could be too much confusion. There might be another
mushrooms group, for example: a Passengers' collective who might call
themselves "mushrooms" to protest the lack of communication during
train cancellations.
(2) ... also a little difficult on the toungue, and doesn't make too
much sense to the man in the street.
Names like "Victims of Bankrupcy" can be read too many ways.
(4) ... has merit.
The final decision was a tossup between Unpaid Mushrooms and Screwed
Mushrooms. I've stuck with Unpaid Mushrooms and leave the Screwed
Mushrooms for anyone who cares to take up the rights of Thai prostitutes.
*****
> and don't underestimate wayne's ability to take take take at whatever
> cost he doesn't have to pay.
... don't underestimate the politicians' ability to sweep, sweep,
sweep these issues under the carpet.
Nick Bishop.
how about just plain "mushrooms"
or "insolvency mushrooms"
"administration mushrooms"
"screwed mushrooms"
"militant mushrooms"
and don't underestimate wayne's ability to take take take at whatever
cost he doesn't have to pay.
On 10/09/2004, at 6:48 PM, nick4mony wrote:
> --- In otmushrooms@..., "GERLACH, Steven"
> <steven.gerlach@s...> wrote:
>> How about "Wayne's Castoffs???"
>>
>
> Umm ... the hoardes of new creditors won't be Wayne's Castoffs.
>
> I can't believe that EVERY company that fails in the next five weeks
> will have a director called Wayne.
>
> *****
>
> Any advance on "Unpaid Mushrooms"? Going once, going twice ...
>
> Nick.
>
>
>
> Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members
> of this group) can read this message in the archives.
>
> Useful links:
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
--- In otmushrooms@..., "GERLACH, Steven"
<steven.gerlach@s...> wrote:
> How about "Wayne's Castoffs???"
>
Umm ... the hoardes of new creditors won't be Wayne's Castoffs.
I can't believe that EVERY company that fails in the next five weeks
will have a director called Wayne.
*****
Any advance on "Unpaid Mushrooms"? Going once, going twice ...
Nick.
How about "Wayne's Castoffs???"
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nick4mony [mailto:no_reply@...]
> Sent: Thursday, 9 September 2004 9:11 PM
> To: otmushrooms@...
> Subject: [otmushrooms] Suggestions for change of group name
>
>
> People,
>
> It was suggested we should change the name of the group to something
> more descriptive, for the hoardes of new creditors from my leafleting
> efforts.
>
> I thought of a couple of names:
>
> "Administrator Administrator" (That's a bit like Liar Liar, but a
> lot more difficult on the toungue, unfortunately)
>
> "Unpaid Mushrooms" (The mushroom theme is still applicable, and the
> word Unpaid is fairly central to our(my) campaign).
>
> "Small Creditors Collective" (or whatever)
>
> Any other suggestions?
>
> Nick Bishop, grad.com @ nick4mony
>
>
>
>
> Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members of
> this group) can read this message in the archives.
>
> Useful links:
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
People,
It was suggested we should change the name of the group to something
more descriptive, for the hoardes of new creditors from my leafleting
efforts.
I thought of a couple of names:
"Administrator Administrator" (That's a bit like Liar Liar, but a
lot more difficult on the toungue, unfortunately)
"Unpaid Mushrooms" (The mushroom theme is still applicable, and the
word Unpaid is fairly central to our(my) campaign).
"Small Creditors Collective" (or whatever)
Any other suggestions?
Nick Bishop, grad.com @ nick4mony
The report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee came out a few weeks
ago. I've downloaded it, and started reading through it.
It sounds mostly good, and they do talk about "unsophisticated
creditors" quite a number of times, and the priorities in a Deed of
Company Arrangement.
Two concerns: 1. Ability to "contract out" of the usual priorities in
a Deed ... 2. No mention of full payment of creditors in a Deed (or
any other kind of trading out).
I will upload it to the Public File Archives in due course, and
summarise relevant points here.
*****
One other thing I've forgotten to mention: I'm putting an expanded
version of the brochure on the web, titled "Issues for Creditors of
Insolvent Companies", for the hoardes of new arrivals expected from my
brochure handouts.
--- In otmushrooms@..., Elizabeth Fullerton
<laslig@o...> wrote:
> couple o' points, nick:
>
> take the bit about real estate out, it reduces the focus and
therefore the impact of the
> brochure.
>
> the last point under what it's not about is what it *is* about, so
you need to physically
> separate that line.
I will take these into account. For the second point, that entire
panel will have to go anyway, coz I think I'm on my own, funding-wise.
The other thing is because this is seditious material (oops I mean
election/political material) I'll need to have an Authorised By
.../Printed by ... line on them - which I think I've got sorted.
[The Authorised By line must name a person and an address where they
can be contacted through the day]
Nick.
couple o' points, nick:
take the bit about real estate out, it reduces the focus and therefore the
impact of the
brochure.
the last point under what it's not about is what it *is* about, so you need to
physically
separate that line.
> nick4mony <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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.
>
>
>
>
> Reminder: this message is not private. Anyone (including non-members
> of this group) can read this message in the archives.
>
> Useful links:
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--- 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/
Offline 
Send Email
