Now let me see if I have this rightThe administrator...

Now let me see if I have this right

The administrator acknowledges that the number one reason the company went into administration was:

A lack of adequate project design and controls

This led to previously unheard of cost and time blow outs

Cost blow outs in the order of 400% or more

400% - four hundred percent - stop for a second and think about that FOUR HUNDRED PERCENT

Time schedule blow outs of 200%

These blow outs are well beyond industry standard

That is what killed the company - huge unheard of blow outs in cost and time which demanded debt be used to meet the over runs because the time over runs meant the company wasnt producing metals in sufficient quantity to pay the cost blow outs - and not enough to pay the debt

This all arose because the company failed to ensure project design was adequate - thus the plant didnt work so it couldnt produce metals - cant produce metals you got nothign to sell - got nothign to sell got no money comming in - who care what the metal prices were - they had nothing to do with it

Moreover inadequate project design meant they obviously had to go back and redesign and build stuff.

Moreover - control systems were also inadequate - I will use the word oversight rather than control - from snippets I heard contractors were on site charging what ever they wanted and doing what ever they wanted coz no one wqas there to tell them what to do - from what I hear those running things on site couldnt tell them what to do coz they hadnt been told

So who was ultimatiely responisble for ensuring project design and oversight was adequate to meet the task and deliver the project on time and on budget

As i see it the buck stops with the board '

Who is the board - the board are the directors - correct???

The board (the directors) were ultimatley responisible for ensuring adequate design and cntrol was in place BEFORE embarking on the project and during the construction phase.

Yes the directors may have delegated some of those duties to others and indeed employed people to do things but the corporations act does not allow a director to escape his duties by delegating stuff to someone else -

The courts expect directors to be across the many issues and learn if need be about the business. Even if a task is delegated to someone else the director does not delegate away his duty

So as I see it the directors were ultimatley responsible for the company;s failure.

In the 439a report the administrator is recommending that creditors vote yes to a DOCA he outlined in the 439a report

Who proposed that DOCA - good - go to the top of the class


The DOCA was proposed by the THE VERY PEOPLE WHO FAILED TO ENSURE PROJECT DESIGN and CONTROLS WERE ADEQUATE


The administrator has identified the number one reason for the company failing and yet recons it is a good idea to vote yes to a DOCA proposed by the same people who led the company to this point


HAVE I MISSED SOMETHING

So what position will creditors be in 12 months from now - I recon they will be where we are - to use the old footy analogy they will be Left Right Out

This is a disgrace those people should be nowhere near the company - they must have no shame - if I had done what they have I would slink into the dark never to be heard from again