Not surprised by the SMH article. I say again; Bain and Deloitte would have signed what is called a “Heads of Agreement” which is a conditional sale subject to due diligence and a host of detail negotiations. Of course the devil is in the detail. Bain has much more experience in playing these nasty games than Deloittes.
The SMH article suggests’Deloitte and everyone else involved are just starting to find out what these people have in store for them, hence my suggestion that Virgin staff keep looking for another job, no matter how confident you might be about a Virgin future. I’m sorry but that’s it.
What is Bains exit strategy? That is the most closely guarded secret of all. Businesses predators like Bain don’t do these deals without an exit strategy set in stone before they start - and I guarantee it will have the Australian public, the Government, suppliers and the staff gnashing their teeth when they find out what it is if the deal goes ahead.
The bond holders have already worked out that Bain and Deloittes are set to screw them. They naturally object. It sounds to me that there may be a legal argument involving the concept of “Pari Passu” - exactly where the bond holders rank compared to other creditors. For example, how could the Government loan money to Virgin when it owes the bond holders 2 billion? I don’t know if that would be legal. This brings into play more legal games and more vultures. Smart operators might buy Virgins bonds for cents in the dollar then screw the company in the courts until they get the full capital returned.