great southern confusion, page-3

There are a great many questions regarding this whole situation, however the answer to most of them is 'no', and that will annoy some.

There are just a few basic questions that overwhelm all other considerations:

Can the projects continue? Yes, but only with a new RE.

What happens if there is no new RE? The receivers will wind up the projects.

Will investors lose more if the projects are wound up? Almost certainly yes.

Can a new RE be appointed? Yes, but only with a majority vote, so it won't be easy for ANY offer to pass.

The PPPL offer won't pass as they are requiring all projects to vote yes or they want none. The support for Gunns by the receivers makes them more likely, so that's the horse I have already bet on.

The possibility or desire for carbon credits, buying the land and anything else won't happen if there is no new RE, because NOTHING AT ALL will happen. The projects will CEASE TO EXIST despite any protestations. There are a great many things different investors want and most of them are totally out of reach at this point.

As for loans, the class actions may well succeed in finding the investors were mislead by GTP, but the banks acted in good faith. Courts will uphold the loans. Damages against GTP and directors are the only hope there.

The banks do not want a new RE, that is their worst fear as how can they get their money then? The banks want the projects wound up, anything else just makes their job harder.

All the offers don't require investors to put in more money and the offers are wanting up to 45 - 50% for the latest projects that were actually planted. Compare that to the nothing those projects will return if they're wound up and a new RE isn't a bad idea. For the 2000 project they want a much smaller share, which if it enables a return at all is better than nothing.

Basically, while we all want more from what we invested in we are in a situation where we could well get nothing. We have a choice between bad and worse. If you want a return at all you need a new RE. To vote against having one is voting to lose everything. Investors have very little real power here, let's use what we do have wisely to protect what remains and minimise losses. The banks are praying for a no vote.

Since the required vote is difficult to achieve I'll vote for the most likely to pass and that's Gunns. If it was PPPL I'd have voted for them, but it wasn't.