the thing that annoyed me about the news story was where the Babcock spokesperson said:
"BBIPL can only be pushed into liquidation if it is insolvent, and it isn’t"
If BBIPL isn't insolvent then it should be paying us face value of our notes in the event that BNB can't pay. Babcock employees keep reiterating that our debt is subordinate to the banks debt. In the article it says:
"A company spokesperson says the BBIPL guarantee is subordinated to banking claims, so the noteholders cannot call on it until after bankers have been repaid."
Look up subordinate debt on wikipedia, investopedia or in a textbook. The accepted definition of subordinate debt is that it is subordinate in the event of a company going into receivership or being closed. If BBIPL are not closed or in receivership, then they should be obliged to pay back our notes at face value under the BBIPL guarantee. I think there is a case here for legal action.
BNB
babcock & brown limited
