Hi Marla, I share your frustration with the situation but...

Hi Marla,

I share your frustration with the situation but disagree with your points. It is clear that the consortium (who were apparently working with the Co-op) was the only option for shareholders other than VA. If there was another alternative the company would still be solvent today and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Of course Mcgrath Nicol would prefer that Quintis maintain control of the assets that are now owned by blackrock. They are mandated by blackrock and are there to act in the interests of their client, not shareholders or growers. Mcgrath Nicol wouldn't be doing their job properly if they didn't give that feedback to the press.

It is in the best interests of blackrock or any potential purchaser of the business to purchase the growers' wood at the lowest possible price, that way they can make a higher margin from the sale of MIS grower wood. The recent 2002 tender pricing proved as much. The Co-op is being led by growers and they are saying they can achieve a higher price for growers and that the growers will share in the upside.

Unfortunately for us all, what has transpired over the last 12 months is now written into the pages of history and cannot be reversed. Past events aside, I will be following the group that can achieve the best outcome for my plantation interests. History would suggest that this will not be with the creditors / receivers. When was the last time an investor other than a creditor got a good deal from a receiver?

Equity investors have already seen their share value transferred to blackrock, why would plantation investors do the same?