sharetrader
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35
  1. #21
    Veteran novice
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    7,289

    Default

    Yes, many thanks, Enumerate.

    Let's hope that it hastens the parties concerned and their insurers towards a settlement!

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    128
    Rgds

  3. #23
    Share Collector
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Porirua
    Posts
    3,509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Contrarian View Post
    [Liquidator,] Mr Lombe said he would apply to the court for the noteholders to receive a priority distribution. ''We have worked it through and had a successful mediated settlement. I think it is a good story, a good outcome for noteholders,'' he said.
    Let's guess... 5 cents in the dollar?

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Gidday

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/babco...212-1szsf.html

    Babcock creditors' gamble pays off tenfold
    Rgds

  5. #25
    Share Collector
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Porirua
    Posts
    3,509

    Default

    That is great to see those who contributed to the litigation getting a decent pay-out (not me, I'm afraid)! Might encourage more contributors in future and improve the chances of getting distributions.

    Still doesn't appear to be any guidance on what the base distribution is though.

    I was having a bit of a review on the weekend and came to the conclusion that I am so over fixed interest/debt markets. My early investments did okay, but in the last 10 years it seems many of them are issued with so many clauses and maturity options, that the issuer is bound to have at least one option for screwing debt-holders at the back-end (even assuming the issuer is still solvent).

    When I lose money on shares, I make it back twice over in another trade.... doesn't work on debt.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    I am very pleased that at long last noteholders will be able to regain some of their capital from this investment.

    Those that backed the litigation, of course, will do slightly better.

    However, it would seem that Mr Larkin and his Goldman Sachs advisers have "got away with it". The billion$ of assets in BBIPL are being wound down in favour of the secured lenders. The noteholders who funded some of these assets are completely shutout. It has also be pointed out by the Administrator that the B&B Directors are potentially culpable for issues with Tricom payments, prospectus declarations, misleading the market (forecasting a 750M profit which turned into a multi-billion dollar loss less than 6 months later).

    The prospects for the recovery of the remaining noteholder capital boil down to the question: "When will ASIC (the aussie regulator) act?).

    To date, ASIC have done nothing. On the back of an ASIC prosecution - the noteholders could put a case to share in the B&B asset unwinding or to pursue the directly culpable.

    In New Zealand, it you were fingered by an Administrator for dodgy dealings ... the regulators would act ... the directors would be facing the music in court. In Australia, the regulator simply watches while the financially crippled noteholders are left to carry the torch in the civil courts at their own expense.

    The B&B story could actually have a completely happy ending, for the noteholders, if only ASIC would act!!

    Good on the NZ noteholders for refusing the derisory offer of 0.1cent on the dollar. It has taken some time ... but at least noteholders have not made it easy for Mr Larkin and his dodgy mates to rob them blind.
    Do not consider my postings as investment advice. I am here to share research and to speculate on what might be. The boundary between fact and conjecture might not always be clear - best to treat all comments as speculation.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lizard View Post
    ... I am so over fixed interest/debt markets.
    I'd strongly urge you to reconsider this view.

    There are some magnificent recovery situations, even now. Consider MXQ.ASX ... Macquarie Fortress has already paid out ...

    Closer to home ... the European volatility is doing strange things with prefs like CASHA.NZX. You pointed out that the reset interest rates are driving down the capital value of these things ... however, CASHA went under 40 cents, at one point.

    There are some other extreme punt situations ... like Bluestar BLUFC.NZX. This is actually a sound business, made viable by the recent restructuring. Well worth a detailed look.
    Do not consider my postings as investment advice. I am here to share research and to speculate on what might be. The boundary between fact and conjecture might not always be clear - best to treat all comments as speculation.

  8. #28
    Veteran novice
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    7,289

    Default

    Some good news in a nasty day on the market as those who funded the legal action receive their first payout!

    No indication yet of what is to be expected from the general distribution.

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    103

    Default

    what was the distribution per note?
    Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm

  10. #30
    Veteran novice
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    7,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dubdee View Post
    what was the distribution per note?
    Not a pro-rata distribution but a refund to those creditors and noteholders who contributed $400 each to fund the legal action and a payment of 10 times the $400, ie a total of $4,400 to those parties. Capped at the total amount owed but in practical terms I doubt whether this would apply to many! This was the order from the Federal Court of Australia of 3 February 2012.

    One would hope that the order was made in the expectation that there would be a general pro rata distribution to all creditors and noteholders at a later stage but we'll have to wait and see.
    Last edited by macduffy; 19-05-2012 at 11:03 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •