I notice there are some posts indicating an assumption that tree...

I notice there are some posts indicating an assumption that tree owners should be okay. I'm not sure this is necessarily the case. See the earlier post quoting the Tiwi Land Council, where they claim if rent of the land is not paid they can take the trees. If your trees are on land owned by third parties they may be at risk if GTP is not complying with the lease agreement (which I imagine may be highly probable). The administrators will not give a damn if the only significant consequence of failure to comply with a lease agreement means you lose your trees.

I think anyone who owns trees (and other ag products) under an MIS should seek legal advice about their arrangements (and what rights you have to terminate the management agreement with GTP) and get their lawyer to write a letter to the administrators asking them to confirm what action they are taking to ensure they are complying with GTP's obligations under the management agreement.

Bear in mind too most of these schemes were sold around May-June each year which presumably means annual payments from investors to cover the next year's expenses (for those projects where annual expenses are payable) would be due about now, therefore I would think its unlikely GTP will be paying the rent for too much longer if they are doing so at the moment.

Also, I wouldn't necessarily rely totally on the class action lawyers - they're probably more focussed on lawsuits against GTP, accountants etc rather than trying to rescue the position.