Ansett Ground Staff Superannuation Action Moves to Federal Court

[Buster Hyman]

Dateline: Wednesday 13 August 2003

The Court of Appeal yesterday set aside a decision in the Victorian Supreme Court which gave no priority to the Ansett Ground Staff Plan to receive contributions adequate to meet members’ Retrenchment Benefits. The Plan Trustee appealed, and the Court, in a hearing lasting less than two days, has allowed the appeal on the basis that it was inappropriate for those orders to have been made in the first place.

The Trustee is already contesting the Deed of Company Arrangement in the Federal Court. Yesterday’s decision means that the Federal Court will be asked to resolve the priority question.

Plan Chairman Michael Tilley commented yesterday:
"The decision in the Appeal Court will allow the total picture to be presented in the Federal Court. We want to finalise these matters quickly and make funds available for members to choose their superannuation destiny. The unfair treatment of the Plan embodied in the Deed of Company Arrangement is at the heart of the application in the Federal Court."

The Court of Appeal also considered a related appeal by the Ansett Deed Administrators, which challenged the obligation to make any further contributions to the Plan, and adjourned this matter indefinitely.


BOHICA! :mad: :suspect:

[Airtart]

What does that mean?

It sounds like there will be no money left for anyone it's all going to go in legal costs!

[oldhasbeen]

What does it mean?
It means that at the end of all this crap, instead of getting a minute payout, we will all get a bill to pay for the lawyers fees and to see off the MM's to their retirement on a tropical island................that's what it means:mad: :mad: :mad:

[crocodile redundee]

As with ANY legal battle, the party with the most money wins!!!!!!

[Airtart]

An update for former Ansett employees Update 15
18 August, 2003

Dear former employee,

As you are aware, the Trustees of the Ansett Superannuation Ground Staff Plan issued proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria seeking answers to specific questions concerning Ansett's liability to pay Retrenchment payments to the Superannuation Funds and, the order in which those payments should be made.

Justice Warren, at first instance, ruled that Ansett is obliged to pay Retrenchment payments and that such Retrenchment payments do not rank for any special priority of payment.

The Trustees thereafter appealed the decision of Justice Warren. The appeal came before the Court of Appeal on 11 August, 2003.

The Court of Appeal has allowed the appeal, in effect ruling that the Federal Court of Australia should resolve the superannuation issues. The Court of Appeal has not published its reasons for its decision but will do so shortly. The Court of Appeal has not suggested Justice Warren's legal analysis was wrong.

The Administrators are committed to expediting the resolution of these issues in the Federal Court of Australia. The Administrators have been attempting to have the Federal Court deal with the matter all year.


Mark Korda
Administrator Mark Mentha
Administrator

[E.P.]

All year..........year after year.

Do the ground staff even realise that they are screwing their former workmates and bolstering the pockets of Michael Tilly et al?

The only people getting paid are those who DIDN'T work for Ansett!!!!:(:(

[sirjfp]

and as a ground staff mate of mine said " I'm either going to get a bigger super payout and a smaller redundancy or a bigger redundancy and a smaller super payout........ But the lawyers will get a big payout no matter what." ... Shame on you groung staff super fund trustees!

[Buster Hyman]

Yes, nice "educated" post there E.P.:hmm: Like the groundstaff themselves are personally to blame!

I think you'll find, if you bothered to check, that most, if not all groundstaff are opposed to this action. Quite a few have pointed this out to the trustees, but they will continue this action, regardless as they will be the ones funding any shortfall!:mad:

[E.P.]

More 'fait accompli' than 'educated', Buster 'ol boy.

I have in fact made representation to the Plan Trustees.

Not ONE nor ANY collective group of ground staff member(s) have made any formal (read legal) attempt to have the Plan trustees cease action or settle.

Why don't you suggest this to those you so stoically defend.

At least we agree that nothing will be left for those who deserve.

As for the other guys 'mate'. More correctly, he will get NO super and NO part there of any redundancy.

[Wirraway]

Fri "Melbourne Age"

Ansett super row drags on
By Leonie Wood
August 22, 2003

Resolution of a long-running battle between the trustees of an Ansett superannuation fund and the failed airline's administrators hinges on a Federal Court case after the Victorian Supreme Court yesterday threw out an appeal by the trustees.

The trustees have demanded that the administrators, Mark Korda and Mark Mentha, of KordaMentha, pay as much as $200 million to meet a projected shortfall in the Ansett Ground Staff Superannuation Fund.

But the administrators have rejected the claim, saying fellow creditors at a meeting in early 2002 voted to keep the claim as an unsecured debt, in effect giving it no priority in the rankings of payouts.

Within a few months of the creditors' vote, the trustees initiated a claim against the administration in the Victorian Supreme Court and then opened up a separate front in the Federal Court.

After a lengthy and complex hearing before Justice Marilyn Warren in the Supreme Court last year, the trustees failed in their claim that the fund retained a priority ranking under section 556 of the Corporations Act.

The subsequent appeal, however, was terminated by Justices Ormiston, Calloway and Batt. The judges noted that six months ago the fund's actuary issued a special funding and insolvency certificate deeming the Ground Staff fund "technically insolvent" because its potential liabilities to fund members exceeded its assets.

This certificate effectively replaced an earlier certificate that was used in evidence in the hearing before Justice Warren. As a result, the Court of Appeal ruled that the emergence of the new certificate meant the appeal was not ready to proceed.

The appeal judges said the basis of the original claim had no standing, because section 556 only applied to companies that were "in winding up". That does not apply to Ansett, which has been in administration and is the subject of a deed of company arrangement.

The Federal Court case is due to be heard next month.

==========================================

[Buster Hyman]

I'd be interested to know what your definition of a "formal/legal" attempt is. Doubtless, also the groundstaff that have already done this, perhaps you can tell us where we are going wrong?

[sirjfp]

............. the case will be heard next month.........and adjourned ....and delayed .........and a decision will be finally made when one of 2 things happen....1) We have all got too old and died , or 2)..The lawyers work out that they have milked everything they can and there is no more money left to fight over.

It's hard not to be cynical,


Cheers to you all

[E.P.]

"Doubtless, also the ground staff that have already done this..." (sic)

Well Buster, obviously you do not know what has (or more correctly) what has not been attempted. If you truely wish to discover the options, pick up the phone and talk directly to Michael Tilley.

I believe however, that like the majority of ground staff, you are betting on the big payout from the court case.

[Buster Hyman]

You could've been a pilot with a self righteous attitude like that...oh, perhaps you are:rolleyes: Well, carry on believing what you want to believe, I won't bother to illuminate you any further.:hmm:

[rmm]

An update for former employees

Update 17

27 August, 2003

Dear former employee,

This is an update on the Ground Staff Superannuation Fund proceedings in the Federal Court.
Today, Justice Goldberg set down the date for the hearing on the validity of the Deed of
Company Arrangement as brought by the trustees of the Ansett Ground Staff
Superannuation Plan.
The proceedings will be heard on 12 November 2003 and is expected to last ten days.
The Federal Court will then consider its position and hand down its decision on a date yet
to be advised.
As you are aware, until this matter is resolved, no distributions can be made to
employees.

Mark Korda Joint Deed Administrator

Mark Mentha Joint Deed Administrator

[E.P.]

Have the ground staff been advised of the trustees next move, should the Federal Court find in favour of the Administrators??

Has anyone bothered to ask??

How much have the trustees spent to get this far??

How much have the Administrators spent defending it?? (using the AN staff redundancy):uhoh: :uhoh:

[Buster Hyman]

$9000 Ansett payouts
By SUSIE O'BRIEN
27aug03

MORE than 600 former Ansett engineers will each receive up to $9000 under a Federal Court ruling on redundancy yesterday.

Many of the engineers have been out of work or working part time since Ansett collapsed in September 2001.

But Australian Services Union Victorian secretary Ingrid Stitt said 16,000 other lower-paid Ansett workers were still owed "tens of thousands in unpaid redundancy".

"The Ansett levy raised $250 million but none of that money has yet to go into workers' pockets. It's a cruel hoax," she said.

Ms Stitt said workers received their minimum entitlements of eight weeks redundancy payout but were owed another four weeks for each year of service.


That battle has yet to be listed for hearing in the Federal Court, she said.

Yesterday's Full Bench decision upheld an earlier Federal Court ruling to grant the payments to the engineers.

Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association spokesman Chris Ryan said the decision meant many engineers would now receive another eight weeks' pay.

"For an individual, that should be an amount between $8000 and $9000."

[E.P.]

:sad: Now, now, Buster

I thought you weren't going to illuminate me any further??:{

Any answers to the above??:suspect: