I am back. So is SGH, page-69

Quite well recalled.

-ve pledging was all the corporate rage at the time, whilst many corporate loans were unsecured. In this instance, the banking syndicate (led by NAB) went off to the Court and convinced the court (ex parte) to appoint receivers & managers. As for why the actions actually occurred at the time, what was clear was that the indebtedness owed had grown sharply whilst the quality and servicing of the facilities had deteriorated. The banks also seemingly moved shortly after Bond had announced the sharply hastened sale of its brewing assets. Fear therefore was clearly brewing and not just in the hops.

Whilst the decision obtained initially by the NAB led syndicate was later (Feb90) overturned on appeal, the overall landscape started changing dramatically. Increasingly, new banking or syndicated loans were tied to security, and in addition to any -ve pledges applying, were also secured against an increasing array of other covenants, requirements, reporting obligations, etc. Most significantly however is that today RCM's can be quickly appointed without there having to be a court appointed enquiry (which incidentally at the time, even now, still exists in the context of so called emergency steps being taken by the Court under the Corporations Act etc to protect, preserve or safeguard the assets of the company, particularly where there are issues of security, claim, diminution, etc all involved).

The Bond and bell sagas however are still quite topical as the resulting fallout still hangs low across the horizon, even today. There have been marathon hearings, and massive judgements all the way through to the High Court, and not just in the Bell and Bond matters but also in the IEL /Adelaide Steamship, hence Tooth /David Jones' matters etc.

One of the best discussions of the whole saga however came from out of Owen J's epic 2008 decision at:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/WASC/2008/239.html

Mind you, that decision alone requires several reams of paper, as do a few of the others.

From SGH's perspective however the relevance is this - the one thing (and the only thing) that the secondary lenders are concerned for is that they have either assigned, or fresh security in place which can be called upon at a moment's notice in order to either enforce or impress their position. Beyond this, when even the fitouts and the photocopiers and the office furniture have all been pledged as security (as per relevant PPSR disclosures), at least in the Australian context, it remains that 100% of all that either moves, shakes, can be imprinted upon, sat down to, or can be called upon, converted, collected in or cashed up (even the motor vehicle that Westpac holds security over), it suggests that there is veyr little (if anything) of SGH that has not been pledged or secured in some way to either the retiring financiers, to the incoming /secondary financiers, or to specific trade creditors. A search of the PPSR in respect of the Australian operations quickly starts showing this up (all 70+ pages worth of registrations, etc, albeit primarily to Westpac, at least through to the beginning of this week).