72 cents in the dollar - AN staff
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
72 cents in the dollar - AN staff
taken from The AGE
Ansett payouts threatened
By Leonie Wood
July 19 2002
The ground staff super fund claims a $200 million shortfall.
Picture: Wayne Taylor
Final payments to Ansett staff and the Commonwealth may fall sharply after the trustee of a superannuation fund representing about 8500 of the failed airline's employees claimed it faces a shortfall of up to $200 million.
The latest estimate of the shortfall, assessed on July 12 by the actuary of the Ansett Ground Staff Superannuation Fund, is more than double the level suggested by Ansett's administrators in their second report to creditors in March.
Importantly, the trustees want the administrators, Mark Mentha and Mark Korda, to meet the shortfall in the same way they would pay other expenses of their administration - a radical move that would propel the superannuation claim above all unsecured creditors, redundancy payments to all other Ansett employees, and the Commonwealth.
Based on figures supplied by the administrators in their second report to creditors, if an additional $200 million were accounted as a priority debt, the potential payouts to Ansett staff would drop from earlier estimates of 92-100 cents in the dollar to about 72 cents. Unsecured creditors would get nothing.
The fund's shortfall arose because the worst possible scenario emerged - all but a few hundred members of the Ground Staff superannuation fund lost their jobs.
In a complex case now before Justice Marilyn Warren in the Victorian Supreme Court, the trustees have asked the court to determine if the Ansett ground staff were "retrenched" by the administrators, if Ansett is obliged to meet the shortfall, and if it then ranks as an expense of the administration.
If the trustee wins on all three issues, the action will shift to the Federal Court where the trustees have initiated action before Justice Alan Goldberg claiming a deed of company arrangement, approved by Ansett's creditors in late March, unfairly prejudices the super fund.
Under the terms of the fund's trust deed, a member's benefit depends on how he or she terminates their career at Ansett. Generally, the highest payout applies if a member is "retrenched".
The insolvency provisions of the Corporations Act specifies a hierarchy of debts that must be paid when a company collapses. At the top of the list are expenses of the administrators, followed by wages and salaries of employees, long service leave entitlements and superannuation contributions.
The Federal Government is owed more than $300 million from a loan to meet Ansett employees' wages, long service, annual leave and up to eight weeks of redundancy payments. The administrators must pay the balance of redundancy.
The Commonwealth then assumed the same rank in the payout schedule as employees. So far, it has refrained from joining as a party to the proceedings.
The case is likely to continue for at least the next week.
Ansett payouts threatened
By Leonie Wood
July 19 2002
The ground staff super fund claims a $200 million shortfall.
Picture: Wayne Taylor
Final payments to Ansett staff and the Commonwealth may fall sharply after the trustee of a superannuation fund representing about 8500 of the failed airline's employees claimed it faces a shortfall of up to $200 million.
The latest estimate of the shortfall, assessed on July 12 by the actuary of the Ansett Ground Staff Superannuation Fund, is more than double the level suggested by Ansett's administrators in their second report to creditors in March.
Importantly, the trustees want the administrators, Mark Mentha and Mark Korda, to meet the shortfall in the same way they would pay other expenses of their administration - a radical move that would propel the superannuation claim above all unsecured creditors, redundancy payments to all other Ansett employees, and the Commonwealth.
Based on figures supplied by the administrators in their second report to creditors, if an additional $200 million were accounted as a priority debt, the potential payouts to Ansett staff would drop from earlier estimates of 92-100 cents in the dollar to about 72 cents. Unsecured creditors would get nothing.
The fund's shortfall arose because the worst possible scenario emerged - all but a few hundred members of the Ground Staff superannuation fund lost their jobs.
In a complex case now before Justice Marilyn Warren in the Victorian Supreme Court, the trustees have asked the court to determine if the Ansett ground staff were "retrenched" by the administrators, if Ansett is obliged to meet the shortfall, and if it then ranks as an expense of the administration.
If the trustee wins on all three issues, the action will shift to the Federal Court where the trustees have initiated action before Justice Alan Goldberg claiming a deed of company arrangement, approved by Ansett's creditors in late March, unfairly prejudices the super fund.
Under the terms of the fund's trust deed, a member's benefit depends on how he or she terminates their career at Ansett. Generally, the highest payout applies if a member is "retrenched".
The insolvency provisions of the Corporations Act specifies a hierarchy of debts that must be paid when a company collapses. At the top of the list are expenses of the administrators, followed by wages and salaries of employees, long service leave entitlements and superannuation contributions.
The Federal Government is owed more than $300 million from a loan to meet Ansett employees' wages, long service, annual leave and up to eight weeks of redundancy payments. The administrators must pay the balance of redundancy.
The Commonwealth then assumed the same rank in the payout schedule as employees. So far, it has refrained from joining as a party to the proceedings.
The case is likely to continue for at least the next week.
Evertonian
BA$TARDS!!!
"Great, that's just farking great!" Just what everyone wants to see, lawyers & administrators taking all the money, what a great system we live in. 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing changes, Buster, nothing will ever change. Once again, the worker cops it sweet while the big boys rake in the bucks. If it isn't the two Marks. it'll be the Super fund administrators at the top of the heap at share-out time. How come it has taken all this time to arrive at this conclusion? Did the "shortfall" exist when they took over administration of the Ground-staff Fund?
B@stards!!
TheNightOwl.
B@stards!!
TheNightOwl.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a surprise! 
As one of the few that knew that AN MK2 would surely fail I applied for redundancy back in October. I had no doubt that if it ever got off the ground and I still worked for them I would lose everything. I finally received 90% of my Super after six months of phone calls, threatened legal action etc.
When Ansett went belly up back in September, one of the first things I did was to try to get my Super out. I soon found out that if I ever wanted to see my money again I would need to become redundant. I think they were truly surprised when
I applied for redundancy but as one of the "Dirty Dozen" they were probably happy to get rid of me. To be honest I had had enough and would have left anyway when the opportunity arose.
One of the things that really pi***d me off was the myth that the company spread about "culling" the bottom 5% Sure some of them were hopeless but some were good Pilots. Sitting in the right hand seat for years gives one a unique insight into the overall standard of Pilots. I don't care how they perform in the "Sim" after finding out to the minutest detail what is going to happen. The real test is watching them perform in the aircraft
Anyway I am getting sidetracked here. I read recently that the two Marks have allegedly received (or will) $130 Million for their great work so far.
Any comments?
As one of the few that knew that AN MK2 would surely fail I applied for redundancy back in October. I had no doubt that if it ever got off the ground and I still worked for them I would lose everything. I finally received 90% of my Super after six months of phone calls, threatened legal action etc.
When Ansett went belly up back in September, one of the first things I did was to try to get my Super out. I soon found out that if I ever wanted to see my money again I would need to become redundant. I think they were truly surprised when
I applied for redundancy but as one of the "Dirty Dozen" they were probably happy to get rid of me. To be honest I had had enough and would have left anyway when the opportunity arose.
One of the things that really pi***d me off was the myth that the company spread about "culling" the bottom 5% Sure some of them were hopeless but some were good Pilots. Sitting in the right hand seat for years gives one a unique insight into the overall standard of Pilots. I don't care how they perform in the "Sim" after finding out to the minutest detail what is going to happen. The real test is watching them perform in the aircraft
Anyway I am getting sidetracked here. I read recently that the two Marks have allegedly received (or will) $130 Million for their great work so far.
Any comments?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately I have to agree with all the previous comments (including the "dirty dozen"but this time in engineering) The secret handshakes and goat-riders club was always there and I opted out at the first chance.How much we are to get has constantly being changed,from 100 cents to 92 and now 72,I wonder what the next figure will be !!
Welcome to the club guys! FlightWest went from 100 cents in the dollar, to the latest of maybe 3 cents!!! Would you believe it.
The blood sucking leaches say they are trying to help, all they are doing is stringing it along to increase their "fee's" What a load of BS. I dont know how they can live with themselves taking all that money from people who have lost everything.
We live in a sad sad sad world when this is allowed to happen, but that is government legislation for you.
I hope they all rot in hell!
The blood sucking leaches say they are trying to help, all they are doing is stringing it along to increase their "fee's" What a load of BS. I dont know how they can live with themselves taking all that money from people who have lost everything.
We live in a sad sad sad world when this is allowed to happen, but that is government legislation for you.
I hope they all rot in hell!
Very unfortunate for the staff concerned but yet another example of the lunacy of the AN staff employment conditions.
The AN Super Funds were Defined Benefit Funds which meant that an emplyee's ultimate entitlement did not rely solely on how much they had contributed to the Fund but also on matters such as how they were terminated. As part of various deals over the years AN management and ujnions had agreed that payout from the various funds would be higher if you were retrenched or made redundant.
This was all very well but ignored the fact that if the situation ever arose whereby everyone was made redundant because AN went belly-up there would not be enough money to cover the entitlements and AN which would have assumed the fund risk as the defined benefit fund employer would be unable to top up the fund because it was broke.
This is what has happened and is a saluatary lesson to all Defined Benefit Fund members who negotiate these conditions. Fortunately Defined Benefit Funds are now gradually being wound up and becoming increasingly rare. Fairer and ultimately more secure Accumulation Funds are taking their place.
Everyone knew AN was over-staffed and needed to trim by at least 20% but because of the redundancy provisions and super conditions negotiated by short-sighted unions and stupid management they could never have done this without going broke.
The AN Super Funds were Defined Benefit Funds which meant that an emplyee's ultimate entitlement did not rely solely on how much they had contributed to the Fund but also on matters such as how they were terminated. As part of various deals over the years AN management and ujnions had agreed that payout from the various funds would be higher if you were retrenched or made redundant.
This was all very well but ignored the fact that if the situation ever arose whereby everyone was made redundant because AN went belly-up there would not be enough money to cover the entitlements and AN which would have assumed the fund risk as the defined benefit fund employer would be unable to top up the fund because it was broke.
This is what has happened and is a saluatary lesson to all Defined Benefit Fund members who negotiate these conditions. Fortunately Defined Benefit Funds are now gradually being wound up and becoming increasingly rare. Fairer and ultimately more secure Accumulation Funds are taking their place.
Everyone knew AN was over-staffed and needed to trim by at least 20% but because of the redundancy provisions and super conditions negotiated by short-sighted unions and stupid management they could never have done this without going broke.
