NB: I've still got some 130 brochures left. Looks like I've got myself
a  creditors' meeting to match.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/printpage/0,5481,11624420,00.html

3000 jobs put into jeopardy
Peter Mickelburough, state politics reporter
08 Dec 2004

ABOUT 3000 workers face an uncertain Christmas after major Victorian
car-parts maker Ion went into administration yesterday.

Also in doubt is a $90 million engine plant being built at Altona as
part of a $1 billion contract to supply engines to Holden, won by Ion
in October 2002.

Ion makes alloy wheels and parts, transmission assemblies, cylinder
heads, oil pans and other automotive products for major companies
including Ford and Harley-Davidson.

It is also Australia's largest transporter of petroleum products, with
320 tankers distributing oil and gas to retail and commercial outlets,
and a major aviation refueller.

The expected sale yesterday of the group's fuel distribution arm, Ion
Energy Services, was halted by the administration move.

The deal to make 200,000 engine blocks a year for Holden's new V6
alloy motors would have created more than 100 jobs at the Altona plant.

When the deal was struck, Premier Steve Bracks said it would reinforce
Victoria's reputation "as the home of Australia's automotive industry".

A spokeswoman yesterday said the Government was happy to work with
administrators to save workers' jobs and the company because Ion was
important to the state's vehicle manufacturing industry.

The Richmond-based company employs about 3000 people at sites in
Australia, New Zealand and the US with annual revenue of about $700
million.

Just under half the 700 workers at the company's $88 million Albury
transmission plant live

in Victoria. Australian Workers Union secretary Bill Shorten slammed
the company's bankers for withdrawing financial support just months
after providing a $440 million line of credit to Ion.

"What has changed so radically in such a short time? We want to
understand how they, as good corporate citizens, can be accountable
for their short-term decision to interfere with the future of Altona,
South Australia, Auckland and Kentucky," he said.

Mr Shorten called for immediate talks, but said he believed most
workers' jobs and entitlements were secure in the short term.

Construction at the Altona site stopped yesterday after head
contractor John Holland sent workers home at the administrator's request.

Trading in the company's shares was suspended when its directors
placed Ion into voluntary administration as a result of cost overruns
and delays associated with the Altona plant, and projects in South
Australia and Kentucky.

Ion Chairman John Pizzey said the unanimous decision followed the
decision of Ion's bankers to cancel its main lending facility.

"Without the support of its bankers, Ion will not be able to meet its
commitments for the capital expenditure program required to complete
its current growth projects," he said.

Hello Tom

It seems that the Administrators are happy to make up stories about DEWR /
GEERS to suit themselves or cover their own lack of knowledge about the
formal GEERS process and policy.

The Administrators are quick to say DEWR has changed the GEERS arrangements,
yet have never tabled to us specifically what they say has changed, when and
why it affects us.

Recently our class has entered into discussions about amending the Trust
Deed to allow for the reinstatement of our statutory priority. We requested
that before the Administrators do this that they consult GEERS to ascertain
how this should be done in order to satisfy or reasonably expect to satisfy
GEERS. Whether the Administrators have done this or not we are unsure, but
they have since tendered to us an "out" phrase:

"in accordance with its usual practice, it is unable to give any indication
as to whether former employees will be paid by GEERS".

Yet it was the Administrator who had previously confidently represented to
us that in respect of the DOCA and Trust Deed, that he had verbal and
written undertakings that GEERS would pay employee entitlements (only for
DEWR to subsequently advise that it would not be making the payments).

We also wrote to MPs Tony Abbott , Gavin Marshall and Kevin Andrews, early
in the piece and did not receive any really effective responses. We also
wrote to Catherine Whitby of the Complaints unit of ASIC who replied ASIC
were unable to help us as we 'voted for the DOCA and Trust Deed' - ie that
we had accepted the abolition of our priority (as if!) and any resolution
should best be done in court.

Interesting how ASIC see fair justice: it expected a group of redundant
employees to have the funds to take an Administrator to court.

Cheers

Antony


From: tdnorthey <no_reply@...>
Reply-To: otmushrooms@...
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:41:31 -0000
To: otmushrooms@...
Subject: [Unpaid Mushrooms] Re: OT Summary; GEERS issues



antony_hing <antony_hing@c...> wrote:
> Thank you very much for the summary.
> I have also had a quick look at 'theissues' page on the web -
> well done and what a top effort!
>
> GEERS
> The Administrator has represented that GEERS have over the last 2
> years implemented a number of policy changes. Is this also your
> understanding of the situation?

Our administrator made a similar claim.  He said "that the GEERS
operational arangements were changed during the OT administration
period" and that "DEWR had admitted in a workshop on GEERS to
Insolvency Practisors that the information on the operation of GEERS
where a DOCA was in place was not clear and could lead to confusion".

We put this to the GEERS NSW Team Leader Mike Moore, and he did not
confirm it - merely said to the best of his knowledge there had not
been a recent GEERS workshop to IPs.

It seems clear that the administrators knew that OT's deed did not
follow the guidelines but they didn't know how flexible GEERS would
be if the guidelines were not followed.  GEERS wanted them to follow
the guidelines and didn't want to tell them how much room they had
to move.

> Have you found anyone at GEERS who really knows the rules and
> policies and is helpful?

No.  We did have a few contacts but they were not really
forthcoming - ultimately the decision to reject our application was
made by then-minister Tony Abbott.

We made several different complaints to ASIC and they investigated
them but did not act.  Abbott suggested we complain to ASIC and even
wrote to the treasurer (who is responsible for ASIC) but ASIC in the
end dropped every complaint.

Abbott clearly stated that "GEERS assistance [would], however, be
made available to the eligible former employees of Open Tel if the
DoCA [was] changed to comply with the requirements set out in the
GEERS OAs".

> THE SWISH DEED
> It's been quite a while since I looked at the Deed and even then
> I had no idea what I was really looking for! I'll have a re-read
> of the Swish Deed for the treatment of Secured creditors and to
> re-examine whether the Deed makes for part-payments to both
> employees and trade creditors and revert to you then.

OT's administrator (Yates) told me that "Swish is notable because
GEERS originally said in a letter that they would pay and then said
that they would not", and that "apart from the letter, Swish is very
similar to OT".

Have you got an electronic copy of the Swish deed?

It is an interesting aside to look at Objectif - they were vaguely
similar company to OT (not as big) that went into VA around the same
time as OT.  The reports to creditors are vastly more detailed and
seem more user-friendly - they are available at
http://www.knights.com.au/reports.htm
For example, they detail each of the offers to buy the business
whether they considered them serious possibilities or not.  OT's
administrator provided no details of the offers to buy parts of OT's
business and didn't provide explanations as to why none of them were
ultimately considered serious.







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
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@...
<mailto:otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

antony_hing <antony_hing@c...> wrote:
> Thank you very much for the summary.
> I have also had a quick look at 'theissues' page on the web -
> well done and what a top effort!
>
> GEERS
> The Administrator has represented that GEERS have over the last 2
> years implemented a number of policy changes. Is this also your
> understanding of the situation?

Our administrator made a similar claim.  He said "that the GEERS
operational arangements were changed during the OT administration
period" and that "DEWR had admitted in a workshop on GEERS to
Insolvency Practisors that the information on the operation of GEERS
where a DOCA was in place was not clear and could lead to confusion".

We put this to the GEERS NSW Team Leader Mike Moore, and he did not
confirm it - merely said to the best of his knowledge there had not
been a recent GEERS workshop to IPs.

It seems clear that the administrators knew that OT's deed did not
follow the guidelines but they didn't know how flexible GEERS would
be if the guidelines were not followed.  GEERS wanted them to follow
the guidelines and didn't want to tell them how much room they had
to move.

> Have you found anyone at GEERS who really knows the rules and
> policies and is helpful?

No.  We did have a few contacts but they were not really
forthcoming - ultimately the decision to reject our application was
made by then-minister Tony Abbott.

We made several different complaints to ASIC and they investigated
them but did not act.  Abbott suggested we complain to ASIC and even
wrote to the treasurer (who is responsible for ASIC) but ASIC in the
end dropped every complaint.

Abbott clearly stated that "GEERS assistance [would], however, be
made available to the eligible former employees of Open Tel if the
DoCA [was] changed to comply with the requirements set out in the
GEERS OAs".

> THE SWISH DEED
> It's been quite a while since I looked at the Deed and even then
> I had no idea what I was really looking for! I'll have a re-read
> of the Swish Deed for the treatment of Secured creditors and to
> re-examine whether the Deed makes for part-payments to both
> employees and trade creditors and revert to you then.

OT's administrator (Yates) told me that "Swish is notable because
GEERS originally said in a letter that they would pay and then said
that they would not", and that "apart from the letter, Swish is very
similar to OT".

Have you got an electronic copy of the Swish deed?

It is an interesting aside to look at Objectif - they were vaguely
similar company to OT (not as big) that went into VA around the same
time as OT.  The reports to creditors are vastly more detailed and
seem more user-friendly - they are available at
http://www.knights.com.au/reports.htm
For example, they detail each of the offers to buy the business
whether they considered them serious possibilities or not.  OT's
administrator provided no details of the offers to buy parts of OT's
business and didn't provide explanations as to why none of them were
ultimately considered serious.

Thank you very much for the summary.
I have also had a quick look at 'theissues' page on the web - well done and
what a top effort!

GEERS
The Administrator has represented that GEERS have over the last 2 years
implemented a number of policy changes. Is this also your understanding of
the situation?
Have you found anyone at GEERS who really knows the rules and policies and
is helpful?

THE SWISH DEED
It's been quite a while since I looked at the Deed and even then I had no
idea what I was really looking for! I'll have a re-read of the Swish Deed
for the treatment of Secured creditors and to re-examine whether the Deed
makes for part-payments to both employees and trade creditors and revert to
you then.

Cheers
Antony







From: tdnorthey <no_reply@...>
Reply-To: otmushrooms@...
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 02:52:02 -0000
To: otmushrooms@...
Subject: [Unpaid Mushrooms] Summary of OT situation.



For the benefit of Antony and any other new members, I'll summarise
the situation with Open Telecommunications (OT) with emphasis on the
effects on redundant staff.

OT went into VA in July 02, owing (in order of statutory priority)
$780k in secured debt secured by fixed charges, approx $3.7M owed in
employee entitlements, $2M in secured debt secured by floating
charges, and approx $5M to unsecured creditors.

Immediately prior to VA, OT was negotiating with Macquarie Bank
(MBL) to sell the largest division of OT, and when the sale fell
through, OT was placed into VA immediately.

Most of the secured debt resulted from issue of convertible notes,
which converted upon VA into shares and secured debt accruing
interest at 11+ %.  The issue of notes was arranged by MBL and
although they were not listed as creditors, the secured creditors
were the OT CEO and the remainder apparently were clients of MBL.

Approx 40% of staff were made redundant by VA.

VAs proposed two choices to creditors - liquidation, and a deed
(recommended by the VA) that would see employees get approx 43%
after approx 12 months and the unsecured creditors get 20% after 2
years.  Secured creditors were not mentioned in the deed.  Naturally
enough, secured creditors were in favour of the deed, as under
liquidation they would get nothing.  Continuing employees also were
in favour of the deed, as under liquidation they would lose their
jobs.  These two groups of creditors dominated in numbers and the
deed was passed at the meeting held in Oct 02.

The report by the VA recommending the deed (and containing the first
details of the deed) was sent by post arriving on a Friday, when the
meeting was held Monday morning.  VA claimed this was legitimate as
the meeting was an adjourned meeting so the notice period only
applied to the original meeting date.

At the meeting, VA was questioned about potential impact of deed on
GEERS, and said if we were worried to vote for liquidation.  However
the VA's report only contained generic disclaimers about GEERS and
at the meeting, the VA did not mention GEERS until questioned.

After approx 12 months, VA and OT proposed a change to the deed to
get OT out of the deed by transferring all the money owed under the
deed ($1.79M, having already paid $790k in Dec 03) to a trust which
paid out in Jan 04 (not sure when unsecured creditors got paid - it
might have been later).  The purpose was purported to be to allow OT
to relist on ASX.

OT raised $11M in a private placement in Dec 03, and they used most
of it to discharge the secured debt and the debt owed under the
deed.  OT is now relisted on the stock exchange.

MBL recently (May 04) has purchased a large parcel of the CEO's
shares and now owns 11.3% of OT.

**Affect of the deed:
Because the deed said that unsecured creditors would receive some
monies while employees were not paid in full, the deed altered the
statutory priorities, meaning GEERS refused to pay (decided about
Jun 03).

A hidden effect of the deed was that secured creditors got a 100%
payout.  Secured creditors had nothing to lose by the deed and
likelihood of 100% to gain.  They would only have got 28% in
liquidation and by deferring payment of that 28%, they earned
interest on the entire debt at 11% and were paid out at 100%, plus
getting shares in an ongoing company.  The 28% was never at risk as
it was fixed secured debt.  If the deed failed, the 28% would go
straight back to the head of the queue.  Worst case for secured
creditors under the deed was the same as liquidation.

If 28% of debt owed to you by OT was secured by assets and you were
guaranteed it if OT's deed failed, would you choose to take 28% now
and lose the rest, or defer payment by a year or two with interest
in order to get 100% payout?  The latter sounds like a good deal to
me.

I would be interested to hear if the same applied to Swish's secured
creditors.

In effect, this treatment of secured creditors also alters statutory
priorities.  It is unclear to me if GEERS regards this as a problem.

**Fees:
The CEO of OT got paid $716,684 over the 2002-03 - which is pretty
good for the boss of a company that has gone into administration,
sacked a whole lot of workers and not paid them a cent for
2 years, blown $6M of employees and unsecured creditors funds, plus
diluted shareholders by 90+%.

Where did the $6M of employees and secured creditors funds go?
Secured creditors (including CEO): extra $2M + interest
Deloittes (VA): estimated $1M+
Lawyers: estimated $1M+
Underwriter for placement: $1M+

** Superannuation
We have been "paid" our super (or 43% of it), which means the VA has
given it to the ATO and the ATO has sat on it since Jan 04!  ATO
have a huge backlog of SGC payments to go through - in July it
affected 2% of the workforce!

**Conclusions

Companies should not be able to choose their own VA.  Because the VA
is paid by the company, the VA has a conflict of interest.  VAs are
able to make decisions which directly increase their fees.  Also
favourable treatment of the company by the VA will affect sentiment
of other partially solvent companies toward that VA and hence
affects future fee income.

Deeds should be required to cover all classes of creditors
explicitly.

The GEERS scheme should be altered to remove the conflict it has
between affecting votes of claimants at creditors meetings and
allowing claimants to be ill-informed with regard to requirements of
GEERS.

It should be a crime for administrators to not clearly inform each
class of creditors of the potential financial outcome of decisions
upon them, even if the outcome is indirectly caused (as in the case
of rejected GEERS claims).

VA fees should be capped (including legal and investment bank fees).

Perhaps two or more VAs should be appointed initially to compete for
the creditors' business.

I hesitate to suggest that the priority of employees entitlements be
inviolable but if they can't make GEERS work any other way, then
that's the way it's got to be.

ASIC should be more active in enforcing the law in relation to
administration.






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
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@...
<mailto:otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In otmushrooms@..., a switched on antony_hing wrote:
> Hi Steve
>
> The trouble is the average employee knows very little about the
machinations
> of the laws around insolvency. The insolvency industry knows this
and too
> often exploits it to there own ends, rather than for the benefits of the
> Creditors.

Yes, this is a very central issue, also applicable to contractors,
small business, and other trade creditors.

I highly recommend you go to the group's home page (web link below)
and select the Issues for Creditors and Employees link (direct link
http://shorterlink.com/?PIV1NF which redirects to
http://au.geocities.com/nick4mony/otm/theissues.htm )

I've summarised this, and other issues there, but I'd be very
interested to know if you see additional issues.

There is a Version 2 in progress, which will give hints on how
creditors can increase their chances of a better deal.

Nick Bishop
-----
Error: Water detected in drive A:
-oOo-

--- tdnorthey wrote:
>
> Secured creditors were not mentioned in the deed.  Naturally
> enough, secured creditors were in favour of the deed, as under
> liquidation they would get nothing.

...

> They would only have got 28% in
> liquidation and by deferring payment of that 28%, they earned
> interest on the entire debt at 11% and were paid out at 100%

Clarification: The 28% was their FIXED charge (charge over fixed
assets) and they would have got that in a liquidation.  They would not
have seen a cent from their FLOATING charge, because the funds would
have been fully used up by employee claims, which come after FIXED but
before FLOATING.



> to a trust which
> paid out in Jan 04 (not sure when unsecured creditors got paid - it
> might have been later).

In theory, the Unsecureds (trade creditors) were paid out at the same
time.


Nick.
-----
Actions speak louder than words. Screaming is an action.
-oOo-

... Hmmm.  Ignore that last empty reply message of mine. A "run-away"
browser, if you will.  Maybe a Deloitte I.T. person got in somewhere ???

--- GERLACH, Steven wrote:
> Antony,
>
> Sounds exactly like what Deloitte did to us! Burn through the money
and then
> say there's nothing left!

... of course that was a comment provided "for amusement purposes
only".  Tom's (tdnorthey) message was a good timeline of what happened
with OT and Deloitte.

Things started off normally, in OT's case.  The Creditor's Trust
business was only invented to speed up the listing to the Shock
Exchange, and did not alter the amount of money available to the
creditors, and did not (directly) affect the timing, either
[indirectly: enabled the investment to proceed, and for us to be paid
out early].

It did, however, terminate the rights we had under Corporations Law
and the Deed of Company Arrangement - our rights terminated when the
Deed was terminated early.

I agree that OT and Swish are similar in one respect: the two
procedures were Phoenix Company activity in disguise.

*****

Steve is a bit of a comedian, we keep him around because you have to
have a laugh once in a while. As he said:
You gotta laugh ... or else you'd cry.

*****

Empty reply and empty envelopes: It was a while back, but at one
stage, Deloitte sent a whole bunch of empty envelopes to a proportion
of O.T. creditors. Ever since then this list has bristled with empty
envelope comments.

A headline in today's (Wednesday) Age: Stupidity and cynicism rule
Australia, OK!

Yes, there is a lot of stupidity in Australia.

Nick Bishop, grad.com @ nick4mony
-----
"I'm not going to lecture about how you should live your life, I'll
just give you the facts.  Dealing with inactivity costs the Australian
Taxpayer $2.5 billion PER FREEWAY".
-oOo-

For the benefit of Antony and any other new members, I'll summarise
the situation with Open Telecommunications (OT) with emphasis on the
effects on redundant staff.

OT went into VA in July 02, owing (in order of statutory priority)
$780k in secured debt secured by fixed charges, approx $3.7M owed in
employee entitlements, $2M in secured debt secured by floating
charges, and approx $5M to unsecured creditors.

Immediately prior to VA, OT was negotiating with Macquarie Bank
(MBL) to sell the largest division of OT, and when the sale fell
through, OT was placed into VA immediately.

Most of the secured debt resulted from issue of convertible notes,
which converted upon VA into shares and secured debt accruing
interest at 11+ %.  The issue of notes was arranged by MBL and
although they were not listed as creditors, the secured creditors
were the OT CEO and the remainder apparently were clients of MBL.

Approx 40% of staff were made redundant by VA.

VAs proposed two choices to creditors - liquidation, and a deed
(recommended by the VA) that would see employees get approx 43%
after approx 12 months and the unsecured creditors get 20% after 2
years.  Secured creditors were not mentioned in the deed.  Naturally
enough, secured creditors were in favour of the deed, as under
liquidation they would get nothing.  Continuing employees also were
in favour of the deed, as under liquidation they would lose their
jobs.  These two groups of creditors dominated in numbers and the
deed was passed at the meeting held in Oct 02.

The report by the VA recommending the deed (and containing the first
details of the deed) was sent by post arriving on a Friday, when the
meeting was held Monday morning.  VA claimed this was legitimate as
the meeting was an adjourned meeting so the notice period only
applied to the original meeting date.

At the meeting, VA was questioned about potential impact of deed on
GEERS, and said if we were worried to vote for liquidation.  However
the VA's report only contained generic disclaimers about GEERS and
at the meeting, the VA did not mention GEERS until questioned.

After approx 12 months, VA and OT proposed a change to the deed to
get OT out of the deed by transferring all the money owed under the
deed ($1.79M, having already paid $790k in Dec 03) to a trust which
paid out in Jan 04 (not sure when unsecured creditors got paid - it
might have been later).  The purpose was purported to be to allow OT
to relist on ASX.

OT raised $11M in a private placement in Dec 03, and they used most
of it to discharge the secured debt and the debt owed under the
deed.  OT is now relisted on the stock exchange.

MBL recently (May 04) has purchased a large parcel of the CEO's
shares and now owns 11.3% of OT.

**Affect of the deed:
Because the deed said that unsecured creditors would receive some
monies while employees were not paid in full, the deed altered the
statutory priorities, meaning GEERS refused to pay (decided about
Jun 03).

A hidden effect of the deed was that secured creditors got a 100%
payout.  Secured creditors had nothing to lose by the deed and
likelihood of 100% to gain.  They would only have got 28% in
liquidation and by deferring payment of that 28%, they earned
interest on the entire debt at 11% and were paid out at 100%, plus
getting shares in an ongoing company.  The 28% was never at risk as
it was fixed secured debt.  If the deed failed, the 28% would go
straight back to the head of the queue.  Worst case for secured
creditors under the deed was the same as liquidation.

If 28% of debt owed to you by OT was secured by assets and you were
guaranteed it if OT's deed failed, would you choose to take 28% now
and lose the rest, or defer payment by a year or two with interest
in order to get 100% payout?  The latter sounds like a good deal to
me.

I would be interested to hear if the same applied to Swish's secured
creditors.

In effect, this treatment of secured creditors also alters statutory
priorities.  It is unclear to me if GEERS regards this as a problem.

**Fees:
The CEO of OT got paid $716,684 over the 2002-03 - which is pretty
good for the boss of a company that has gone into administration,
sacked a whole lot of workers and not paid them a cent for
2 years, blown $6M of employees and unsecured creditors funds, plus
diluted shareholders by 90+%.

Where did the $6M of employees and secured creditors funds go?
Secured creditors (including CEO): extra $2M + interest
Deloittes (VA): estimated $1M+
Lawyers: estimated $1M+
Underwriter for placement: $1M+

** Superannuation
We have been "paid" our super (or 43% of it), which means the VA has
given it to the ATO and the ATO has sat on it since Jan 04!  ATO
have a huge backlog of SGC payments to go through - in July it
affected 2% of the workforce!

**Conclusions

Companies should not be able to choose their own VA.  Because the VA
is paid by the company, the VA has a conflict of interest.  VAs are
able to make decisions which directly increase their fees.  Also
favourable treatment of the company by the VA will affect sentiment
of other partially solvent companies toward that VA and hence
affects future fee income.

Deeds should be required to cover all classes of creditors
explicitly.

The GEERS scheme should be altered to remove the conflict it has
between affecting votes of claimants at creditors meetings and
allowing claimants to be ill-informed with regard to requirements of
GEERS.

It should be a crime for administrators to not clearly inform each
class of creditors of the potential financial outcome of decisions
upon them, even if the outcome is indirectly caused (as in the case
of rejected GEERS claims).

VA fees should be capped (including legal and investment bank fees).

Perhaps two or more VAs should be appointed initially to compete for
the creditors' business.

I hesitate to suggest that the priority of employees entitlements be
inviolable but if they can't make GEERS work any other way, then
that's the way it's got to be.

ASIC should be more active in enforcing the law in relation to
administration.

Hi Steve

The trouble is the average employee knows very little about the machinations
of the laws around insolvency. The insolvency industry knows this and too
often exploits it to there own ends, rather than for the benefits of the
Creditors.

In our case, we had our statutory priority as employees, removed without
even being told ie we ranked no higher than unsecured creditors. Seeing
through this, I believe this was a grab by the Administrator to maximise the
pool of funds against which they could charge fees and disbursements.

We found out almost too late that you need an independent expert (such as
Ken) to manage the Administrator/Liquidator/Receiver to ensure they act
appropriately.

Cheers
Antony


From: "GERLACH, Steven" <steven.gerlach@...>
Reply-To: otmushrooms@...
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:38:40 +1000
To: "'otmushrooms@...'" <otmushrooms@...>
Subject: RE: [Unpaid Mushrooms] Re: fighting an incompetent and negligent
VA


Antony,

Sounds exactly like what Deloitte did to us! Burn through the money and then
say there's nothing left!

Steve


> -----Original Message-----
> From: antonyhing [mailto:antony_hing@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 October 2004 9:31 AM
> To: otmushrooms@...
> Subject: [Unpaid Mushrooms] Re: fighting an incompetent and negligent VA
>
>
>
> Hello Nick
>
> I am sure that others in our group would be interested in joining. Mind
> you our affairs have been
> going on for 2 years, so energy levels have waxed hi and lo over this time
> - I am sure you know
> what I am talking about! Only now are we starting to get some finalisation
> - and only because we
> have persisted and persisted.
>
> We have also been particularly fortunate to have appointed Ken Stout of
> Boutique Corporate
> Advisory to our cause. He is a one of the most talented of the insolvency
> practitioners in
> Melbourne as this has been his sole area of specialisation for the last 15
> years (he was a former
> partner of Ernst &Young). Ken's work on FNT Industries helped expose
> Lockwood's
> incompetence which eventually saw Lockwood struck off an insolvency
> practitioner.
>
> My area of specific interest is reclaiming super.
>
> The mechanism that Lockwood tried to effectuate was to essentially hive
> all the former debts of
> Swish into a Trust. This was intended, I believe, to quarantine the new
> Swish (which is a going
> concern) from the former debts. It was also intended that the pool of
> assets associated with this
> Trust would form the entirety of the means by which the
> Admininstrators/Trustees' fees would
> be paid and then of course all other creditors in rank of priority.
>
> A major issue has been the excessive level of fees charged by the
> Administrators, Horwaths
> (and their high level of disbursements for such things as legal advice
> from Deacons), while the
> value of the assets plummeted. As an example at the time of the
> Administration, there was
> c$250K in cash and 6Million shares @ 6c = c$360K. The Administrators have
> burned through
> the $250K cash and stood idly by while the shares have lost 66% in value
> down to 2c (they
> could have sold them at much higher prices). This is the same pool from
> which our super is
> supposed to be paid from.
>
> We argue as Administrators, they owe a special duty of care and that this
> is simply reckless and
> negligent conduct on their part. We see fee disgorgement as a valid
> request.
>
> I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
>
> Cheers
>
> Antony
>
>
> ---
>
>
> In otmushrooms@..., nick4mony <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >
> > --- "antonyhing" wrote:
> >
> > > I'm a former employee of a Melbourne e-Business company called Swish
> >
> > In our deliberations some 10 months ago, we did actually talk about
> > your company - being another that had a Deed similar to yours.
> >
> > It is good that we have someone from the Swish group here.  Are you
> > able to get more of your people to join?
> >
> > 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
>
>
>
>
>



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
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@...
<mailto:otmushrooms-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Antony,

Sounds exactly like what Deloitte did to us! Burn through the money and then
say there's nothing left!

Steve


> -----Original Message-----
> From: antonyhing [mailto:antony_hing@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 October 2004 9:31 AM
> To: otmushrooms@...
> Subject: [Unpaid Mushrooms] Re: fighting an incompetent and negligent VA
>
>
>
> Hello Nick
>
> I am sure that others in our group would be interested in joining. Mind
> you our affairs have been
> going on for 2 years, so energy levels have waxed hi and lo over this time
> - I am sure you know
> what I am talking about! Only now are we starting to get some finalisation
> - and only because we
> have persisted and persisted.
>
> We have also been particularly fortunate to have appointed Ken Stout of
> Boutique Corporate
> Advisory to our cause. He is a one of the most talented of the insolvency
> practitioners in
> Melbourne as this has been his sole area of specialisation for the last 15
> years (he was a former
> partner of Ernst &Young). Ken's work on FNT Industries helped expose
> Lockwood's
> incompetence which eventually saw Lockwood struck off an insolvency
> practitioner.
>
> My area of specific interest is reclaiming super.
>
> The mechanism that Lockwood tried to effectuate was to essentially hive
> all the former debts of
> Swish into a Trust. This was intended, I believe, to quarantine the new
> Swish (which is a going
> concern) from the former debts. It was also intended that the pool of
> assets associated with this
> Trust would form the entirety of the means by which the
> Admininstrators/Trustees' fees would
> be paid and then of course all other creditors in rank of priority.
>
> A major issue has been the excessive level of fees charged by the
> Administrators, Horwaths
> (and their high level of disbursements for such things as legal advice
> from Deacons), while the
> value of the assets plummeted. As an example at the time of the
> Administration, there was
> c$250K in cash and 6Million shares @ 6c = c$360K. The Administrators have
> burned through
> the $250K cash and stood idly by while the shares have lost 66% in value
> down to 2c (they
> could have sold them at much higher prices). This is the same pool from
> which our super is
> supposed to be paid from.
>
> We argue as Administrators, they owe a special duty of care and that this
> is simply reckless and
> negligent conduct on their part. We see fee disgorgement as a valid
> request.
>
> I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
>
> Cheers
>
> Antony
>
>
> ---
>
>
> In otmushrooms@..., nick4mony <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >
> > --- "antonyhing" wrote:
> >
> > > I'm a former employee of a Melbourne e-Business company called Swish
> >
> > In our deliberations some 10 months ago, we did actually talk about
> > your company - being another that had a Deed similar to yours.
> >
> > It is good that we have someone from the Swish group here.  Are you
> > able to get more of your people to join?
> >
> > 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
>
>
>
>
>

Hello Nick

I am sure that others in our group would be interested in joining. Mind you our
affairs have been
going on for 2 years, so energy levels have waxed hi and lo over this time - I
am sure you know
what I am talking about! Only now are we starting to get some finalisation - and
only because we
have persisted and persisted.

We have also been particularly fortunate to have appointed Ken Stout of Boutique
Corporate
Advisory to our cause. He is a one of the most talented of the insolvency
practitioners in
Melbourne as this has been his sole area of specialisation for the last 15 years
(he was a former
partner of Ernst &Young). Ken's work on FNT Industries helped expose Lockwood's
incompetence which eventually saw Lockwood struck off an insolvency
practitioner.

My area of specific interest is reclaiming super.

The mechanism that Lockwood tried to effectuate was to essentially hive all the
former debts of
Swish into a Trust. This was intended, I believe, to quarantine the new Swish
(which is a going
concern) from the former debts. It was also intended that the pool of assets
associated with this
Trust would form the entirety of the means by which the
Admininstrators/Trustees' fees would
be paid and then of course all other creditors in rank of priority.

A major issue has been the excessive level of fees charged by the
Administrators, Horwaths
(and their high level of disbursements for such things as legal advice from
Deacons), while the
value of the assets plummeted. As an example at the time of the Administration,
there was
c$250K in cash and 6Million shares @ 6c = c$360K. The Administrators have burned
through
the $250K cash and stood idly by while the shares have lost 66% in value down to
2c (they
could have sold them at much higher prices). This is the same pool from which
our super is
supposed to be paid from.

We argue as Administrators, they owe a special duty of care and that this is
simply reckless and
negligent conduct on their part. We see fee disgorgement as a valid request.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Cheers

Antony


---


In otmushrooms@..., nick4mony <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> --- "antonyhing" wrote:
>
> > I'm a former employee of a Melbourne e-Business company called Swish
>
> In our deliberations some 10 months ago, we did actually talk about
> your company - being another that had a Deed similar to yours.
>
> It is good that we have someone from the Swish group here.  Are you
> able to get more of your people to join?
>
> Nick.

Hello Nick

I am sure that others in our group would be interested in joining. Mind you our
affairs have been
going on for 2 years, so energy levels have waxed hi and lo over this time - I
am sure you know
what I am talking about! Only now are we starting to get some finalisation - and
only because we
have persisted and persisted.

We have also been particularly fortunate to have appointed Ken Stout of Boutique
Corporate
Advisory to our cause. He is a one of the most talented of the insolvency
practitioners in
Melbourne as this has been his sole area of specialisation for the last 15 years
(he was a former
partner of Ernst &Young). Ken's work on FNT Industries helped expose Lockwood's
incompetence which eventually saw Lockwood struck off an insolvency
practitioner.

My area of specific interest is reclaiming super.

The mechanism that Lockwood tried to effectuate was to essentially hive all the
former debts of
Swish into a Trust. This was intended, I believe, to quarantine the new Swish
(which is a going
concern) from the former debts. It was also intended that the pool of assets
associated with this
Trust would form the entirety of the means by which the
Admininstrators/Trustees' fees would
be paid and then of course all other creditors in rank of priority.

A major issue has been the excessive level of fees charged by the
Administrators, Horwaths
(and their high level of disbursements for such things as legal advice from
Deacons), while the
value of the assets plummeted. As an example at the time of the Administration,
there was
c$250K in cash and 6Million shares @ 6c = c$360K. The Administrators have burned
through
the $250K cash and stood idly by while the shares have lost 66% in value down to
2c (they
could have sold them at much higher prices). This is the same pool from which
our super is
supposed to be paid from.

We argue as Administrators, they owe a special duty of care and that this is
simply reckless and
negligent conduct on their part. We see fee disgorgement as a valid request.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Cheers

Antony


---


In otmushrooms@..., nick4mony <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> --- "antonyhing" wrote:
>
> > I'm a former employee of a Melbourne e-Business company called Swish
>
> In our deliberations some 10 months ago, we did actually talk about
> your company - being another that had a Deed similar to yours.
>
> It is good that we have someone from the Swish group here.  Are you
> able to get more of your people to join?
>
> Nick.

--- "antonyhing" wrote:

> I'm a former employee of a Melbourne e-Business company called Swish

In our deliberations some 10 months ago, we did actually talk about
your company - being another that had a Deed similar to yours.

It is good that we have someone from the Swish group here.  Are you
able to get more of your people to join?

Nick.

Hello Nick and everyone

I'm a new member to this group, who read your article in the Oct 21 BRW.

I'm a former employee of a Melbourne e-Business company called Swish that
entered into VA
in late 2002 with about 45 employees being made redundant or sacked.

The VA, initially David Lockwood and Mathew Muldoon of Sims Lockwood (now part
of
Horwaths), decided in their infinite wisdom (without informing us or giving
proper notice) to
remove our employees' statutory priority. Consequently GEERS were unable to be
subrogated into our position and therefore refused to pay the entitlements under
the GEERS
Scheme.

We allege that the VA has been negligent and have subsequently formed a class to
continue to
pursue our claims against Horwaths and their legal advisors Deacons.

I look forward to familiarising myself with the group and no doubt will have
many questions to
ask.

Cheers

Antony Hing

Snapshots
News from the industry.
BRW. 21 October 2004

Going for broke

Voluntary administrations are on the rise, but fewer companies are
entering arrangements with creditors to continue trading. This is
because directors have realised they are not protected from legal
action by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission, says
the chief executive of Insolvency Notices, Paul Fordyce. Voluntary
administrations in the September quarter were up 14% year on year,
to 884, but deeds of company arrangement were down 17% nationally to
161.

Fordyce says the Victorian Supreme Court's finding against John
Elliott in the Water Wheel case in May last year is largely
responsible for directors opting for liquidation rather than a deed
of arrangement.

Elliott was ordered to pay a share of $1.4 million, with Water
Wheel's other directors, for breaching the Corporations Act by
allowing the company to trade while it was insolvent. Fordyce
says: "The result of the Water Wheel case is that [directors] may do
a deed of company arrangement but that may not clear their liability
as a director."

Fordyce also believes that the fall in deeds of arrangement is due
to increasing cynicism about them by creditors. "They are getting a
little less willing to accept them. There may be a feeling that
directors are getting off too easily and that the creditors would
prefer to have a liquidation and an investigation into the affairs
of the company."

Also in the September quarter, receiverships were up 74% year on
year, to 141, and appointed controllers were up 49%, to 67. Fordyce
says this is a strong sign that Australia's economy is buoyant.

He says: "Secured creditors will often support or nurture a customer
who is in difficulty because if the economy is bad, and you put in a
receiver and try to sell the business, there are not going to be
many buyers for it and then you crystallise your loss at a much
greater loss."

- Bruce Andrews

This is from the same URL as the previous story
http://www.brw.com.au/fearticle.aspx?docId=28738

Snapshots
News from the industry.

By Kath Walters, Bruce Andrews
BRW. 21 October 2004

Unpaid creditors are banding together to try to put an end to abuses
of insolvency laws. Nick Bishop, a former employee of a listed
company, Open Telecommunications, has established an e-mail group
demanding changes to legislation and sharing ways to counter "legal
tricks", which he says administrators can use to prevent employees
and creditors from getting their entitlements.

Bishop was a software engineer at Open Telecommunications when the
company went into voluntary administration in April 2002. The
administrators revived the company, but Bishop says some employees
were made redundant and others were offered a job in the company if
a deed of company arrangement was approved. The deed was approved.
Bishop says redundant employees received 43¢ in the dollar, but he
says he and others had to fight to get their redundancy and
superannuation entitlements.

Bishop says insolvency laws are too complex, and his e-mail group is
intended to help inform creditors who find the process daunting and
cannot afford legal advice. "There are complications in the
provisions in the laws allowing creditors to take action that hinge
on complex descriptions of discrimination or unfair behavior," he
says.

Bishop's group, which he calls Unpaid Mushrooms, is lobbying to
change the insolvency laws. Bishop says companies coming out of
administration must pay creditors 100% of debts.

He says: "If a company is trading out, creditors should eventually
be paid 100¢ in the dollar, even if it takes some time. A company
that is viable should be profitable."


The e-mail group, originally called OTMushrooms, was started for
Open Telecommunications employees 18 months ago. Bishop is expanding
the group for anyone struggling through insolvency. Membership is
free at: http://yahoogroups.com.au/groups/otmushrooms.

--- In otmushrooms@..., Elizabeth Fullerton
<laslig@o...> wrote:
> Is the text of the BRW article available online?

You seem to be able to get a free 4-week trial
http://www.brw.com.au/trial/freetrial.asp

Is the text of the BRW article available online?



> nick4mony <no_reply@...> wrote:
>


We can expect a few people reading the BRW article today to be looking
around this web site, so I have made several updates to the web and
Files areas of Unpaid Mushrooms at the Yahoo! end:
   1. I have restructured the files, putting all OpenTel specific files
into a subdirectory
   2. The front page description has been updated: see it at
http://yahoogroups.com.au/group/otmushrooms/
   3. The otm_ettiquite.txt file, which is automatically sent to new
members when they join, has been updated.

I have included the new version of otm_ettiquite.txt below ... as a
reminder to existing members.
-----
From Nick Bishop, otmushrooms-owner [at] yahoogroups.com.au
This is an automatic message to new subscribers.

We can expect a few people reading the BRW article today to be looking
around this web site, so I have made several updates to the web and
Files areas of Unpaid Mushrooms at the Yahoo! end:
   1. I have restructured the files, putting all OpenTel specific files
into a subdirectory
   2. The front page description has been updated: see it at
http://yahoogroups.com.au/group/otmushrooms/
   3. The otm_ettiquite.txt file, which is automatically sent to new
members when they join, has been updated.

I have included the new version of otm_ettiquite.txt below ... as a
reminder to existing members.
-----
From Nick Bishop, otmushrooms-owner [at] yahoogroups.com.au
This is an automatic message to new subscribers.

People,

Thankyou for taking part in the Unpaid Mushrooms email list.  Some
points to remember when using this email list.

1. To view old messages, shared files (*.pdf, etc), and the members
list go to the web site:
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/otmushrooms/
Those with yahoo ID's can also set options on their membership, send
messages (from the web), and hide their email address (for total spam
protection).

2. If any member has files they wish to share, please don't send them
as attachments to messages - they will be stripped.  Instead, send
them as an attachment to me and I will put them into the Public File
Archive.  Email address is ...        otmushrooms-owner [at]
yahoogroups.com.au

3. When replying to messages, please trim the quoted message down to
that which is relevant.

4. You are reminded that ANYONE can view message archives and files,
but only members can post messages.

5. Special note: I am very interested in getting as many people as
possible to join this list. Please contact anyone you know who has had
a company go under on them (including going into Voluntary
Administration).

6. We're all here for a good time, and there's going to be a lot of
people poking fun at a lot of things, but play the ball, not the man.

Again, thanks for taking part.

Nick Bishop, otmushrooms-owner [at] yahoogroups.com.au

No, this is the end of the road for my contact with ASIC. At the suggestion of
doing an
FOI on the legal opinion and case files, I was told the documents wouldn't be
released...and don't think Philip Laird would leak them to me.

Paul


> Thanks.  Unless you can beat any more out of Philip Laird, this could
> be useful as media comment in the near future.
>
> Nick.
> -----
> Coward, n:
> One who, faced with a perilous emergency, thinks with his legs.
> -oOo-
>

--- Paul Davis wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> Just so that you have a copy of this. I made a submission to ASIC on
the 11 Dec
> 2003. This was rejected on 10 Feb 2004. I appealed this decision,
which ASIC took a
> bit more seriously and ended up seeking legal opinion to whether
someone could be
> charged. Then finally, without explanation on the 24 Aug 2004 they
decided to take no
> action.


Thanks.  Unless you can beat any more out of Philip Laird, this could
be useful as media comment in the near future.

Nick.
-----
Coward, n:
One who, faced with a perilous emergency, thinks with his legs.
-oOo-

Hi Nick,

Just so that you have a copy of this. I made a submission to ASIC on the 11 Dec
2003. This was rejected on 10 Feb 2004. I appealed this decision, which ASIC
took a
bit more seriously and ended up seeking legal opinion to whether someone could
be
charged. Then finally, without explanation on the 24 Aug 2004 they decided to
take no
action.

regards

Paul



-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Laird [mailto:philip.laird@...]
Sent: Tuesday, 24 August 2004 11:15 AM
To: PaulDavis
Subject: RE: Open Telecommunications



Paul

Apologies for the delay in responding to you.

ASIC has ultimately determined to take no action in regard to this.

Feel free to call me on (03) 9280 3556 if you want to discuss it further

Regards

Philip Laird


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Davis
Sent: Monday, 23 February 2004 9:16 AM
To: Philip Laird
Cc: Paul Davis
Subject: RE: Your complaint Re: OPEN TELECOMMUNICATIONS LIMITED (ACN 056
010 121)


Hi Philip,

My argument for an appeal centres around the following areas that sight breaches
of
the Corporations Law Amendment (Employee Entitlements) Act 2000 Part 5.8A at two
separate points in the life of the Open Telecommunications Deed Of Company
Arrangement (DOCA):

1. The structure of the DOCA prevented terminated Open Telecommunications
empoyeesfrom accessing GEERS. DEWR claims that they informed all IPs that a
DOCA must preserve the priority of creditors (as per section 556 of the
Corporation
Act) for terminated employees for employees to be able to access GEERS under a
DOCA. Hence the Directors and IP deliberately and knowingly entered into a DOCA
that significantly diminished the employees ability to recover their
entitlements. Intent
can be established based on the IP and Directors disregard for the information
provided
by DEWR to the IP.

2. Before the DOCA was discharged the Directors had managed to raise $10M of
capital. The Directors had the terms of the DOCA varied so that some of these
funds
could be used to discharge the DOCA early. The Directors at the point of raising
the
$10M had the capacity to pay the terminated employees their full entitlements,
but
used the terms of the DOCA to only pay the terminated employees 43c in the
dollar.
Intent can be established based on the fact that the company clearly had the
capacity
to fund the payment of entitlements and the capacity to vary the DOCA. Also, the
Hon
Minister for Work Place Relations stated that GEERS could be paid if the DOCA
were
varied to fit the operational guidelines of GEERS. Intent can be established
that the
company had the capacity to vary the DOCA when it suited the company, but not
when it would benefit the terminated employees.

Regards

Paul Davis



-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Davis
Sent: Thursday, 11 December 2003 2:05 PM
To: philip.laird@...
Subject: Open Telecommunications
Importance: High


Dear  Philip Laird,

I am a former employee of Open Telecommunication and I am working with Nick
Bishop in attempting to recover the full entitlements of terminated employees.

I believe a number of our group have lodged claims to ASIC about the behaviour
of
Open Telecommunications and the Insolvent Practiser (IP),  which is Deloitte in
this
case.

We are now running out of time to take action, as the directors have successful
moved
at a creditors meeting a variation to the Deed Of Company Arrangement (DOCA)
which
will allow the DOCA to be discharged early. The DOCA variation is for an
establish of
a  trust from which creditors will be paid at the "leisure" by the IP.  OT has
managed to
raise $10M and the directors want to discharge the DOCA early so that they can
begin
trading again. This is one of the conditions of the capital raising. The
discharging of the
DOCA in Jan 2004 will mean the extinguishment of any of the former employees
rights.

Enough though the directors now have more capital at their disposal, there was
no
recommendation for the DOCA to be varied to allow the employees to be paid their
full
entitlements or to restore their priority creditor status (as per section 556 of
the
Corporation Act) which would allow them to access the Department Employment and
Work Place Relations (DEWR) General Employees Entitlements and Redundancy
Scheme (GEERS) as per the GEERS operational guidelines.
(http://www.workplace.gov.au/Workplace/WPDisplay/0,1494,a3%253D3649%2526a0%
253D0%2526a1%253D517%2526a2%253D623,00.html)


It is interesting to note that the CEO will fully recover secured loans to him
via the
capital raise scheme, where as the employees will be left with only 43c in the
dollar.
(http://www.opentelecommunications.com/Investor/Notice-GM-21Nov03.pdf)



It is clear to me that the DOCA was used by the directors of Open
Telecommunications as a tool to diminish the entitlements of the employees,
which is
a clear breach of the Corporations Law Amendment (Employee Entitlements) Act
2000
Part 5.8A.


I appeal to ASIC to please take action before our rights are extinguishment  by
the
discharge of the DOCA. It is a great injustice thatthe hard working employees
will not
be pay their legal entitlements of Salary, Annual Leave, Notice, Redundancy and
Superannuation .



regards



Paul  Davis

absolutely. in fact more likely to, as they are pretty unbelievable.



> GERLACH, Steven <steven.gerlach@...> wrote:
>
>
> Will it work for DDT as well?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Elizabeth Fullerton [mailto:laslig@...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 19 October 2004 1:47 PM
> > To: otmushrooms@...
> > Subject: Re: RE: [Unpaid Mushrooms] Interview for BRW
> >
> >
> > well, if everyone believes hard enough, and claps their hands, it
> might
> > just happen!
> >
> >
> >
> > > GERLACH, Steven <steven.gerlach@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Or at least OT and Wayne.
> > >
> > > :)
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Elizabeth Fullerton [mailto:laslig@...]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 19 October 2004 1:35 PM
> > > > To: otmushrooms@...
> > > > Subject: Re: [Unpaid Mushrooms] Interview for BRW
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > woohoo! let's see if we can improve things enought that this list
> > > becomes
> > > > defunct!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > nick4mony <no_reply@...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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-
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

Will it work for DDT as well?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elizabeth Fullerton [mailto:laslig@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 October 2004 1:47 PM
> To: otmushrooms@...
> Subject: Re: RE: [Unpaid Mushrooms] Interview for BRW
>
>
> well, if everyone believes hard enough, and claps their hands, it might
> just happen!
>
>
>
> > GERLACH, Steven <steven.gerlach@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Or at least OT and Wayne.
> >
> > :)
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Elizabeth Fullerton [mailto:laslig@...]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 19 October 2004 1:35 PM
> > > To: otmushrooms@...
> > > Subject: Re: [Unpaid Mushrooms] Interview for BRW
> > >
> > >
> > > woohoo! let's see if we can improve things enought that this list
> > becomes
> > > defunct!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > nick4mony <no_reply@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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-
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

well, if everyone believes hard enough, and claps their hands, it might just
happen!



> GERLACH, Steven <steven.gerlach@...> wrote:
>
>
> Or at least OT and Wayne.
>
> :)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Elizabeth Fullerton [mailto:laslig@...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 19 October 2004 1:35 PM
> > To: otmushrooms@...
> > Subject: Re: [Unpaid Mushrooms] Interview for BRW
> >
> >
> > woohoo! let's see if we can improve things enought that this list
> becomes
> > defunct!
> >
> >
> >
> > > nick4mony <no_reply@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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-
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

Or at least OT and Wayne.

:)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elizabeth Fullerton [mailto:laslig@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 October 2004 1:35 PM
> To: otmushrooms@...
> Subject: Re: [Unpaid Mushrooms] Interview for BRW
>
>
> woohoo! let's see if we can improve things enought that this list becomes
> defunct!
>
>
>
> > nick4mony <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 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-
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

woohoo! let's see if we can improve things enought that this list becomes
defunct!



> nick4mony <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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-
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

I have added some new files to the Public File Archives (and the
larger files will be added to the Yahoo Files section), restructured
the Public File Archive to separate OpenTel specific files, and
changed the styling.  A similar restructure is pending for the Yahoo
files group.

This is to make it more suitable for general creditors. There is also
a direct link from the Unpaid Mushrooms page of Yahoo Groups to a page
titled Issues for Creditors and Employees, one of the files in the
Public File Archive.

In the near future, a new version of the Issues for Creditors and
Employees will be uploaded, which will give a lot more practical
advice on what happens and how to get a better deal - thanks to Dave
Letcher for the suggestion.

Nick, grad.com @ nick4mony
-----
Swap the email address before use
-----
Actions speak louder than words.  Screaming is an action.
-oOo-

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-