Are ex-AN employees being (ab)used by the ACTU+TESNA?
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thread Starter
Are ex-AN employees being (ab)used by the ACTU+TESNA?
It's been well publicised that the ACTU is the biggest single controlling agent of secured creditors BECAUSE IT REPRESENTS THE EX-ANSETT EMPLOYEES.
Yet these employees are now being severely, financially dis-advantaged as they have not been paid their entitlements.. .And it is becoming PATENTLY CLEAR that none of them will be paid until AFTER the TESNA deal has gone through!. .The reason being, once they receive their payouts, the ACTU then looses its position of strength to other creditors such as Westpac, Diners Club, and so forth.
How many Ansett staff are aware that they are being used in this way? Or is it another case of good old Aussie apathy?
I'd be interested to read any comments from Ansett staff who frequent PPRuNe.
Yet these employees are now being severely, financially dis-advantaged as they have not been paid their entitlements.. .And it is becoming PATENTLY CLEAR that none of them will be paid until AFTER the TESNA deal has gone through!. .The reason being, once they receive their payouts, the ACTU then looses its position of strength to other creditors such as Westpac, Diners Club, and so forth.
How many Ansett staff are aware that they are being used in this way? Or is it another case of good old Aussie apathy?
I'd be interested to read any comments from Ansett staff who frequent PPRuNe.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And while they are at it, they might tell us how they feel about being told NOW that there are going to be 1000 less of them employed than was advised before the creditors meeting at which one could presume they voted for FLEW.
Would they have done so if they had known this.
Why is the Administrator making this announcement and not FLEW who made such a big deal of SAVING their lives.
BOHICA boys 'n girls <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: gaunty ]</p>
Would they have done so if they had known this.
Why is the Administrator making this announcement and not FLEW who made such a big deal of SAVING their lives.
BOHICA boys 'n girls <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: gaunty ]</p>
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thurs "Sydney Morning Herald"
Ansett III workforce slashed in new twist
By Darren Goodsir, Transport Writer
Ansett's revival plans have been dramatically scaled back, with 1000 fewer workers needed, the airline's embattled administrator told the Federal Court yesterday.
With pressure mounting to clinch Ansett's sale to the Tesna syndicate, the court heard that as few as 2500 workers could be employed. As well, flight schedules, thought to have been confirmed, were still being revised.
Adding to fears that the sale was unravelling was the breakdown on Tuesday of talks between the Sydney Airports Corporation and the administrators, Mark Mentha and Mark Korda, over assigning Ansett's Sydney terminal lease.
Negotiations will resume in Sydney today but the terminal deal - the sale's most significant hurdle - is not now expected to be reached until at least next week.
It is believed the administrators rejected the corporation's offer to assign the lease immediately and renegotiate all outstanding issues after the sale to Tesna.
The deterioration in the talks came after days in which both sides said progress was being made on key sticking points.
Revelations about the changes to Ansett II came as the administrators sought the court's approval to continue absorbing losses of $1 million a day.
Counsel for the administrators, Simon Whelan, QC, told Justice Alan Goldberg that they were growing increasingly nervous about possible legal action by disgruntled creditors and wanted the court to shield them while they tried to finalise the sale. They sought permission to keep negotiating until the end of the month.
Apart from the Sydney terminal impasse, Tesna and the administrators need to conclude contracts with 13 airports, have information technology licences assigned, and gain agreement with lessors to use their aircraft.
Any of these issues could kill the $3 billion deal, and scuttle Ansett's bid to claw back a 25 per cent market share from Qantas and Virgin Blue by flying full-service operations to 11 cities.
Mr Korda told the court that the airline's losses could blow out even further because of plunging ticket sales.
Although February was usually the leanest period for domestic flights, activity was also believed to have been affected by "the doubt surrounding the Tesna sale" and the withdrawal of the Federal Government's underwriting of ticket sales.
Mr Korda said revenue had dropped by about $1.8 million a week so far in February compared with average revenue since late September, when limited services resumed.
Under cross-examination by Jonathan Beach, QC, counsel for the ACTU - the airline's biggest creditor - Mr Korda said $61 million would cover the redundancy payments of the 1000 workers who were now without job prospects.
Mr Beach opposed the administrators' application, saying the court should only sanction their conduct until February 15 because their decision to continue trading at a loss had been made only "on a hypothesis, reasonable speculation and anticipation".
"Within a week, things can change dramatically," he told the court.
Counsel for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, Michael Sifris, SC, said the application should be opposed because no court should get involved in a commercial dispute.
The hearing continues today.
Ansett III workforce slashed in new twist
By Darren Goodsir, Transport Writer
Ansett's revival plans have been dramatically scaled back, with 1000 fewer workers needed, the airline's embattled administrator told the Federal Court yesterday.
With pressure mounting to clinch Ansett's sale to the Tesna syndicate, the court heard that as few as 2500 workers could be employed. As well, flight schedules, thought to have been confirmed, were still being revised.
Adding to fears that the sale was unravelling was the breakdown on Tuesday of talks between the Sydney Airports Corporation and the administrators, Mark Mentha and Mark Korda, over assigning Ansett's Sydney terminal lease.
Negotiations will resume in Sydney today but the terminal deal - the sale's most significant hurdle - is not now expected to be reached until at least next week.
It is believed the administrators rejected the corporation's offer to assign the lease immediately and renegotiate all outstanding issues after the sale to Tesna.
The deterioration in the talks came after days in which both sides said progress was being made on key sticking points.
Revelations about the changes to Ansett II came as the administrators sought the court's approval to continue absorbing losses of $1 million a day.
Counsel for the administrators, Simon Whelan, QC, told Justice Alan Goldberg that they were growing increasingly nervous about possible legal action by disgruntled creditors and wanted the court to shield them while they tried to finalise the sale. They sought permission to keep negotiating until the end of the month.
Apart from the Sydney terminal impasse, Tesna and the administrators need to conclude contracts with 13 airports, have information technology licences assigned, and gain agreement with lessors to use their aircraft.
Any of these issues could kill the $3 billion deal, and scuttle Ansett's bid to claw back a 25 per cent market share from Qantas and Virgin Blue by flying full-service operations to 11 cities.
Mr Korda told the court that the airline's losses could blow out even further because of plunging ticket sales.
Although February was usually the leanest period for domestic flights, activity was also believed to have been affected by "the doubt surrounding the Tesna sale" and the withdrawal of the Federal Government's underwriting of ticket sales.
Mr Korda said revenue had dropped by about $1.8 million a week so far in February compared with average revenue since late September, when limited services resumed.
Under cross-examination by Jonathan Beach, QC, counsel for the ACTU - the airline's biggest creditor - Mr Korda said $61 million would cover the redundancy payments of the 1000 workers who were now without job prospects.
Mr Beach opposed the administrators' application, saying the court should only sanction their conduct until February 15 because their decision to continue trading at a loss had been made only "on a hypothesis, reasonable speculation and anticipation".
"Within a week, things can change dramatically," he told the court.
Counsel for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, Michael Sifris, SC, said the application should be opposed because no court should get involved in a commercial dispute.
The hearing continues today.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin M: I'm one of the AN staff to whom you refer, this is the situation as I understand it.. .People who have been made redundant have been paid their "entitlements" within a week of separation in some instances. . .These cover: LSL; A/L; TIL; Z-days; 4/5 weeks pay in lieu notice and the 8 weeks Government Redundancy payment. The payment of the balance of "redundancy" entitlement is a little less clear, some reports have possibly two payments to cover settlement, some only one but, in both cases, payment relies upon the settlement of the sale to Tesna.. .It is anticipated that, if the sale goes through, all payments will be completed by the end of 2002.
That is the information we believe at this time, it MAY be subject to change without notice.
Gaunty: BOHICA??? Please explain!
Kind regards,
TheNightOwl. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
That is the information we believe at this time, it MAY be subject to change without notice.
Gaunty: BOHICA??? Please explain!
Kind regards,
TheNightOwl. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: brisbane
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I requested redundancy in November when they asked for expressions of interest and am still waiting for the balance of the second payment.I have made many phonecalls to the appropriate department and am continually fobbed off to someone else who never gets back to me!!!!! <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The nearest white sandy beach
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
werner what second payment are you referring to?
If you're talking about the balance of your redundancy (the amount remaining after the SEESA payment, LSL, AL and Z-days have been paid) then you won't even get to smell that money until after the Tesna deal is signed, sealed and delivered. Even after that it may take months, even years before you see the rest of your dosh.
If you're talking about the SEESA payment then you should call the staff hotline so they can get it sorted.
As for the initial question.. how exactly are ex employees being disadvantaged? ALL employees are able to get their SEESA (8 weeks redundancy) plus AL/LSL/Z days and pay in lieu of notice (4 weeks) paid out within 21 days of Andersen's receiving their redundancy. The balance will get paid from the funds available once the business is sold as employees are priority creditors. From my point of view the ex-employees will be most disadvantaged if the Tesna deal does NOT go through, since there will not be enough money to cover the full entitlements for staff, not to mention the creditors (who will get zip!)!!!
No disrespect intended Kaptin M but please get the story straight.
In regards to 1000 less employees, it has been suggested on another thread that the way they will handle this is by not offering second round offers (or limiting them only to areas in which staff are required). All staff were aware that Tesna was taking on more staff than it initially needed, so it's not really a major shock to find out they are going to reduce the numbers.
SG
If you're talking about the balance of your redundancy (the amount remaining after the SEESA payment, LSL, AL and Z-days have been paid) then you won't even get to smell that money until after the Tesna deal is signed, sealed and delivered. Even after that it may take months, even years before you see the rest of your dosh.
If you're talking about the SEESA payment then you should call the staff hotline so they can get it sorted.
As for the initial question.. how exactly are ex employees being disadvantaged? ALL employees are able to get their SEESA (8 weeks redundancy) plus AL/LSL/Z days and pay in lieu of notice (4 weeks) paid out within 21 days of Andersen's receiving their redundancy. The balance will get paid from the funds available once the business is sold as employees are priority creditors. From my point of view the ex-employees will be most disadvantaged if the Tesna deal does NOT go through, since there will not be enough money to cover the full entitlements for staff, not to mention the creditors (who will get zip!)!!!
No disrespect intended Kaptin M but please get the story straight.
In regards to 1000 less employees, it has been suggested on another thread that the way they will handle this is by not offering second round offers (or limiting them only to areas in which staff are required). All staff were aware that Tesna was taking on more staff than it initially needed, so it's not really a major shock to find out they are going to reduce the numbers.
SG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: the world
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other thing that has probably caused the revised staff numbers is that the A320 and 321s that are supposed to be coming will not arrive until September. This means that the ramp up will be delayed by 8 months or so.
I guess Tesna doesn't want to support the extra staff until then and so want the Administrator to pay them out.
But I guess what it all boils down to is "Who ******* Knows"
I guess Tesna doesn't want to support the extra staff until then and so want the Administrator to pay them out.
But I guess what it all boils down to is "Who ******* Knows"
This whole debacle is getting wierder by the day, even if we believe half the reports here and in the media. . .First the administrators "sell" the remains of Ansett to another company the week of the election, but big Kim ends up playing in his sandpit in the west. Thus he is not able to bail his mates out again, with only Bracks left to bleat like a lamb. - all that lost payroll tax.
Then at the creditors meeting last week, the administrators have been so clever that they leave the creditors only one choice - sell to Tesna, but oops they are not ready yet to complete the deal. What preparation have Tesna been doing over the last 2 months, apart from lots of flag waving?? Probably think of it like driving trucks - not much to do!!
Now the administrators are running to the courts for protection against losses that will continue to mount daily. How long can they continue like this before ALL the kitty is used up and the creditors get a big fat bouncing cheque??
If backspaces post is near correct, and AN mark whatever is further delayed, when does the umpire step in and say "Enough. GAME OVER!!" More than enough people have had their lives and secutity in limbo over the last few months.
Time for the inevitable I think!
Then at the creditors meeting last week, the administrators have been so clever that they leave the creditors only one choice - sell to Tesna, but oops they are not ready yet to complete the deal. What preparation have Tesna been doing over the last 2 months, apart from lots of flag waving?? Probably think of it like driving trucks - not much to do!!
Now the administrators are running to the courts for protection against losses that will continue to mount daily. How long can they continue like this before ALL the kitty is used up and the creditors get a big fat bouncing cheque??
If backspaces post is near correct, and AN mark whatever is further delayed, when does the umpire step in and say "Enough. GAME OVER!!" More than enough people have had their lives and secutity in limbo over the last few months.
Time for the inevitable I think!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only money I have received is the 4 weeks pay in lieu of notice. What's the hold up? Also if you are in the company super fund you have no chance of getting your money. The latest excuse is a court hearing in June will decide what formula to use for your payout. Apparently it will be slightly less if you resigned than if you were made redundant. This is an obvious delaying tactic as I have been trying to roll my money over to another fund since the collapse. I suppose in June they will say the court case is delayed until December. I have had a gutfull!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: the world
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GF
Just so that you know what sort of time frame these things can take. The last Compass payout was just before Christmas last year. Whats that 8 or 9 years after the event. God knows what they sold after that amount of time.
Just so that you know what sort of time frame these things can take. The last Compass payout was just before Christmas last year. Whats that 8 or 9 years after the event. God knows what they sold after that amount of time.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thread Starter
[quote]What's the hold up?<hr></blockquote>
Perhaps I was being too SUBTLE!!
It should be PATENTLY CLEAR to all Ansett staff that YOU are empowering the ACTU by acting as your representative.
It also seems likely that the ACTU has a strong motive in making sure that the FLEW bid, for the Ansett carcass, succeeds over the Lang/Corrigan counter proposal - the staff numbers of which are now looking seriously similar to the just announced reduced figures of TESNA.
Whomever represents the Ansett staff wields a mighty weapon in determining the eventual, final ownership of Ansett. At the present time it is the ACTU - and it will remain that way UNTIL you are paid out, OR you decide to choose another party to represent you!
This representation has got to be worth BIG $$$$'s to the ACTU and FLEW!
Perhaps I was being too SUBTLE!!
It should be PATENTLY CLEAR to all Ansett staff that YOU are empowering the ACTU by acting as your representative.
It also seems likely that the ACTU has a strong motive in making sure that the FLEW bid, for the Ansett carcass, succeeds over the Lang/Corrigan counter proposal - the staff numbers of which are now looking seriously similar to the just announced reduced figures of TESNA.
Whomever represents the Ansett staff wields a mighty weapon in determining the eventual, final ownership of Ansett. At the present time it is the ACTU - and it will remain that way UNTIL you are paid out, OR you decide to choose another party to represent you!
This representation has got to be worth BIG $$$$'s to the ACTU and FLEW!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ansett 'worse off now': unions. . . .From AAP. .07feb02
ANSETT'S operations were worse off now compared to when administrators took over last September, unions have said.
ACTU counsel Michael Beach told the Federal Court today Ansett had operated at a loss of about $4 million in the three months after September 29 when administrators returned the airline to the air.
"Now in February alone (the estimate is) $24 million. That's quite a different position," Mr Beach told the court.
He said the revamped airline's estimated staff numbers had plummeted while operational losses during the interim period had escalated to an estimated $6 million a week.
Under such conditions there were fears employees would miss out, he said.
Ansett administrators are calling on the Federal Court to sanction their decision to trade at a loss while would-be owners Tesna finalised sale documents.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) opposed the application today, saying it was not in the court's jurisdiction to comment on commercial decisions.
Ansett had operated at a loss since administrators took over operations on September 29, but had only requested court support now that there was a threat the sale may fall through, ASIC barrister Michael Sifris said.
Creditors approved the administrators' decision to trade at a loss when they voted on the Tesna sale at a meeting last week.
But the situation had changed again since then, unions warned the court.
Yesterday, it was revealed the new airline had reduced estimated staff numbers by 25 per cent, from 4,000 to 3,000.
"If we drop down to 2,500 employees and there's a (trading) loss of more than $24 million over February, there may not be enough money to pay employees' entitlements," Mr Beach said.
He called on the Federal Court to closely monitor the administrator's decision, and sanction continued operations until February 15, before reassessing the situation.
The hearing continues this afternoon.
AAP
ANSETT'S operations were worse off now compared to when administrators took over last September, unions have said.
ACTU counsel Michael Beach told the Federal Court today Ansett had operated at a loss of about $4 million in the three months after September 29 when administrators returned the airline to the air.
"Now in February alone (the estimate is) $24 million. That's quite a different position," Mr Beach told the court.
He said the revamped airline's estimated staff numbers had plummeted while operational losses during the interim period had escalated to an estimated $6 million a week.
Under such conditions there were fears employees would miss out, he said.
Ansett administrators are calling on the Federal Court to sanction their decision to trade at a loss while would-be owners Tesna finalised sale documents.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) opposed the application today, saying it was not in the court's jurisdiction to comment on commercial decisions.
Ansett had operated at a loss since administrators took over operations on September 29, but had only requested court support now that there was a threat the sale may fall through, ASIC barrister Michael Sifris said.
Creditors approved the administrators' decision to trade at a loss when they voted on the Tesna sale at a meeting last week.
But the situation had changed again since then, unions warned the court.
Yesterday, it was revealed the new airline had reduced estimated staff numbers by 25 per cent, from 4,000 to 3,000.
"If we drop down to 2,500 employees and there's a (trading) loss of more than $24 million over February, there may not be enough money to pay employees' entitlements," Mr Beach said.
He called on the Federal Court to closely monitor the administrator's decision, and sanction continued operations until February 15, before reassessing the situation.
The hearing continues this afternoon.
AAP
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote] How many Ansett staff are aware that they are being used in this way? <hr></blockquote>
Is it just the Ansett staff that are being used or the creditors as well?
Who paid for the new AOC?. .Who paid for the crew conversion, for those that have started, onto the A320?. .Who paid for the design of the new in-flight service? The list goes on.. .Who paid - the administrator paid - which means all the creditors have paid - not just Ansett staff.
Chanticleer summed it up nicely in today's Fin Review. It says in part [quote]The very fact that there is a delay makes you wonder just what is going on and you can only assume the airport blue is a ruse to keep attention focused somewhere while either TESNA or the administrator get their act together. <hr></blockquote>
So I think Kaptin M the answer is that everybody who is owed money from the Ansett group is being used, while the Tesna group profits from the start up costs incurred by someone else. That's if it takes off at all.
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: rescue 1 ]</p>
Is it just the Ansett staff that are being used or the creditors as well?
Who paid for the new AOC?. .Who paid for the crew conversion, for those that have started, onto the A320?. .Who paid for the design of the new in-flight service? The list goes on.. .Who paid - the administrator paid - which means all the creditors have paid - not just Ansett staff.
Chanticleer summed it up nicely in today's Fin Review. It says in part [quote]The very fact that there is a delay makes you wonder just what is going on and you can only assume the airport blue is a ruse to keep attention focused somewhere while either TESNA or the administrator get their act together. <hr></blockquote>
So I think Kaptin M the answer is that everybody who is owed money from the Ansett group is being used, while the Tesna group profits from the start up costs incurred by someone else. That's if it takes off at all.
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: rescue 1 ]</p>
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gay Fokker,
Who are you trying to fool.. .Does the name B** S******* ring a bell. Captain Zoolander thinks exactly the same as you.
No names please W
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: Woomera ]</p>
Who are you trying to fool.. .Does the name B** S******* ring a bell. Captain Zoolander thinks exactly the same as you.
No names please W
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: Woomera ]</p>
Evertonian
Kaptin. Are you saying we should all resign en-masse from the unions? Do you think it'd work??? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fri "The Australian"
Cargo blow to Ansett. .By MICHAEL BACHELARD and STEVE CREEDY . .08feb02
The Australian has learnt that on Wednesday Qantas snatched a valuable cargo contract from Ansett, putting 300 jobs at risk.
A company half-owned by Qantas, Australian Air Express, grabbed from the administrators a crucial contract with logistics and health giant Mayne.
Australian Services Union secretary Martin Foley said job offers mailed to hundreds of cargo workers were contingent on a ground handling deal with Malaysia Airlines and a domestic cargo contract with Mayne.
Mr Foley said he understood a heads of agreement was reached between the administrators and Mayne, but was thrown out after a lower counter-bid by AAE.
The viability of Ansett's maintenance operations are now also in doubt after Qantas's refusal to pass work Ansett's way.
Six parties -- believed to include Singapore Technologies Aerospace subsidiary SASCO, global giant TRW, engine manufacturer GE and Singapore Airlines Engineering -- have expressed an interest in aspects of the maintenance operations, which the administrators are trying to sell separately.
But it is understood some of the companies doubt that Ansett's fleet alone will provide enough work to make the engineering facility viable.
Ansett had successfully asked Qantas to grant it a contract to work on some of the 737 and 767 fleet.
Australian Workers' Union secretary Bill Shorten said that work would now go overseas.
Ansett maintenance employs about 1300 people.
However, there were growing expectations last night that the stalled talks between the administrators and Sydney Airports Corporation would be resolved by today.
Both sides said there was significant progress in discussions that would allow the Fox-Lew Tesna syndicate to clear the most significant hurdle in its bid for Ansett.
A spokesman for the administrators said there were hopes the parties could reach an agreement with the airport as early as last night.. .-------------------------------------------------. .A snippet from "Australian Financial Review". .unfortunatly can only get header as article. .is locked.
'The Ansett crisis deepened on Thursday after it was revealed that the Tesna syndicate was yet to finalise leasing arrangements for a new fleet and a group representing the biggest creditors claimed it had been "snowballed" in approving the $3 billion rescue plan.'. .--------------------------------------------------
Another full article of interest from AFR
Ruling could open floodgates. .Feb 8. .Fiona Buffini
. .'The administrators appear to be trying to get some sanction for their commercial judgement.'
Courts can expect a flood of similar claims if the Federal Court protects Ansett's administrators from losses incurred in continuing to run the company, corporate recovery experts warned yesterday.
Ansett's administrators have sought court approval to continue trading Ansett - at losses of $6million a week. Insolvency experts view this decision as a commercial judgement and not a matter for the courts.
A court sanction, which may protect the administrators from liability for trading losses or future litigation by creditors, could lead to other claims from administrators seeking protection for continuing to run loss-making companies.
"It probably will start a precedent; this is not the normal practice," said insolvency expert Mr Steve Parbery, principal of Prentice Parbery Barilla.
"The administrators appear to be really trying to get some sanction for their commercial judgement."
While the Federal Court has wide powers to direct administrators, the directions are normally restricted to matters such as sanctioning a sale or clarifying legal issues.
One lawyer described the latest request by the administrators as an "arse-covering exercise".
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has opposed the application, claiming it was not appropriate for a court to make any order about a commercial decision that has been approved by creditors.
The head of insolvency at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Mr Simon Wallace Smith, said there was some validity to the ASIC position. "Administrators always like to be protected from being sued," he said. "In a future case, if we are running a business making losses, why wouldn't you go off to court to protect yourself, particularly if there is a precedent with Ansett."
. .Head of insolvency at Baker & McKenzie, Mr Mark Chapple, said it was clear from case precedents that courts would not make commercial judgements for administrators. "Some judges will not give directions at all in that circumstance," he said.
Administrators are liable for trading losses if there is an asset shortfall, and any potential litigation from creditors.
"I'm not aware of a case where someone has challenged the administrator's actions when they are in accordance with court directions," Mr Chapple said.
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: Wirraway ]</p>
Cargo blow to Ansett. .By MICHAEL BACHELARD and STEVE CREEDY . .08feb02
The Australian has learnt that on Wednesday Qantas snatched a valuable cargo contract from Ansett, putting 300 jobs at risk.
A company half-owned by Qantas, Australian Air Express, grabbed from the administrators a crucial contract with logistics and health giant Mayne.
Australian Services Union secretary Martin Foley said job offers mailed to hundreds of cargo workers were contingent on a ground handling deal with Malaysia Airlines and a domestic cargo contract with Mayne.
Mr Foley said he understood a heads of agreement was reached between the administrators and Mayne, but was thrown out after a lower counter-bid by AAE.
The viability of Ansett's maintenance operations are now also in doubt after Qantas's refusal to pass work Ansett's way.
Six parties -- believed to include Singapore Technologies Aerospace subsidiary SASCO, global giant TRW, engine manufacturer GE and Singapore Airlines Engineering -- have expressed an interest in aspects of the maintenance operations, which the administrators are trying to sell separately.
But it is understood some of the companies doubt that Ansett's fleet alone will provide enough work to make the engineering facility viable.
Ansett had successfully asked Qantas to grant it a contract to work on some of the 737 and 767 fleet.
Australian Workers' Union secretary Bill Shorten said that work would now go overseas.
Ansett maintenance employs about 1300 people.
However, there were growing expectations last night that the stalled talks between the administrators and Sydney Airports Corporation would be resolved by today.
Both sides said there was significant progress in discussions that would allow the Fox-Lew Tesna syndicate to clear the most significant hurdle in its bid for Ansett.
A spokesman for the administrators said there were hopes the parties could reach an agreement with the airport as early as last night.. .-------------------------------------------------. .A snippet from "Australian Financial Review". .unfortunatly can only get header as article. .is locked.
'The Ansett crisis deepened on Thursday after it was revealed that the Tesna syndicate was yet to finalise leasing arrangements for a new fleet and a group representing the biggest creditors claimed it had been "snowballed" in approving the $3 billion rescue plan.'. .--------------------------------------------------
Another full article of interest from AFR
Ruling could open floodgates. .Feb 8. .Fiona Buffini
. .'The administrators appear to be trying to get some sanction for their commercial judgement.'
Courts can expect a flood of similar claims if the Federal Court protects Ansett's administrators from losses incurred in continuing to run the company, corporate recovery experts warned yesterday.
Ansett's administrators have sought court approval to continue trading Ansett - at losses of $6million a week. Insolvency experts view this decision as a commercial judgement and not a matter for the courts.
A court sanction, which may protect the administrators from liability for trading losses or future litigation by creditors, could lead to other claims from administrators seeking protection for continuing to run loss-making companies.
"It probably will start a precedent; this is not the normal practice," said insolvency expert Mr Steve Parbery, principal of Prentice Parbery Barilla.
"The administrators appear to be really trying to get some sanction for their commercial judgement."
While the Federal Court has wide powers to direct administrators, the directions are normally restricted to matters such as sanctioning a sale or clarifying legal issues.
One lawyer described the latest request by the administrators as an "arse-covering exercise".
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has opposed the application, claiming it was not appropriate for a court to make any order about a commercial decision that has been approved by creditors.
The head of insolvency at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Mr Simon Wallace Smith, said there was some validity to the ASIC position. "Administrators always like to be protected from being sued," he said. "In a future case, if we are running a business making losses, why wouldn't you go off to court to protect yourself, particularly if there is a precedent with Ansett."
. .Head of insolvency at Baker & McKenzie, Mr Mark Chapple, said it was clear from case precedents that courts would not make commercial judgements for administrators. "Some judges will not give directions at all in that circumstance," he said.
Administrators are liable for trading losses if there is an asset shortfall, and any potential litigation from creditors.
"I'm not aware of a case where someone has challenged the administrator's actions when they are in accordance with court directions," Mr Chapple said.
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: Wirraway ]</p>