row grows over sons of gwalia decision , page-4

LC56,

Good talking point but article was only looking at issue from one perspective, reality is banks should not lend with out security, CMR is a case in point, no bank would touch it hence unconventional borrowings/capital raisings and unheard of finance from chairman.

Real issue going forward for corporate OZ is the ranking of shareholders equal to unsecured creditors, if you were a supplier to a public company only way to ensure ranking ahead of shareholders would be some form of security or ROT. Banks are capable of looking after themselves, trade creditors are generally speaking not that sophisticated.

Ruddless & Co have bent over backwards ensuring our banks are secure with virtually unlimited guarantees so any legislative change is minor in the overall scheme of things, on the other hand banks don't vote so any voter backlash will be taken into account.

SOG was a unique case, clear and intentional fraud of stated gold reserves and negative pledge borrowings with banks falling over themselves to lend, that is why they are so p/off with judgement.

CMR does not have bank debt to contend with so any change won't affect you if limited to banks only, I don't see any lobbying in Canberra by creditors as they don't have the likes of ABA representing them.