The question of the future of flying?????

[spacesailor]

" Virgin Australia has been paying Branson a figure reported to be $10M a year,"

Poor Richard, Didn't that M bank CEO, take home $53,million PA AND get a golden handshake, to see him off for his retirement.

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

No they don't but they can cause a lot of grief for the other creditors if they don't get paid. There are many many instances where ATO have agreed not to prosecute a business owner if they paid taxes outstanding but by the time that was done, there was nothing else left. Once that agreement was made (often privately, between the business owners and the Tax lawyers) by the time a wind-up notice is issued there is nothing left to fight over. The worst bit is, because the tax office didn't prosecute the business owners get to walk free and do it again the very next day.

 

Wow.. Over 'ere, HMRC have, I think, first dibs.. The only competitor is the administrator who may take their fee before HMRC gets theirs (although I guess there would be horsetrading), then secured debotrs, unsecured debtors, shareholders...

[onetrack]

The ATO used to have first dibs on any money, now they have to line up with the creditors. Thus the reason the ATO is harsher than they used to be, on any company that is lax with tax owing.

The banks, as secured lenders, only have first dibs on secured assets, if it can be proven they only lent funds to the company, while the company was solvent.

If it can be proven they lent money while a company was insolvent (and they knew it), they then become unsecured creditors, and have to line up with the trade creditors.

 

An associate here on the left coast was the bloke who pursued this legal technicality, because he lost a lot of money in the early 90's (hundreds of thousands) to a company he had been dealing with, when they fell over.

He was then outraged when their bank grabbed all the company funds, telling the creditors they had first dibs on it - leaving nothing for the creditors.

But he reckoned the bank knew they were insolvent for a long time, and kept giving them more money - because they weren't ever going to lose anyway, because all their lending was well secured.

 

He took the bank to court, and it went through every court in the country, ending up in the High Court - whereby the Judges of the High Court agreed with him.

It took about 10 years, but it was a revolutionary judgement, and the decision made all the banking institutions crap themselves.

So, from that day onward, if the liquidators can prove the company lenders knew the company was insolvent, but kept lending them money, the lenders are no longer entitled to be preferential creditors - no matter how good the security is.

[Jerry_Atrick]

The law is slightly different here... I can't recall the adminsitator/insolvency practitioner's claim, but defiitely Her Maj's Revenue and Customs has first dibs before any other debtor. After that, definitely, secured debt only has first claim on secured assets (unless there is subordinated secured debt on the same asset/s or shared senior debt on the same assets - in which case they get in line with seniority). In an unsecured debt situation, there is no concept that any unsecured creditor has more rights than any other, except under certain circumstances. These can be:

- Breach of covenant or terms of the debt. So, for example, if someone has lent money to an entity with a covenent (e.g. they will not exceed a certain debt/equity ration, share price will not go below a point, can't assign certain assets, etc) and the company does, then the debtor has right above

- Where the unsecured debt has been tiered between senior, subordinated, mezzanine, etc. Note, there can be a breach of terms where a senior note/debt holder may require notification and approval of further senior debt (and sometimes junior/subordinated).. but it isn't really worth the paper it is written on as the law of equity kicks in, so banks rarely offer it.. unless they package the loans and sell them off into the secondary loan markets. Although, for PLC (listed companies - from memory, Ltd in Aus), they will do it because of the financial reporting and prudential regulations.

 

Glad to hear your mate had the stamina to see it through.. Unless there is a state of federal statute (would imagine the latter), if the bank was unsecured, I would be tempted to take them to court as well.. regardless of whether or not money was lent after knowing of insolvency - there is no difference between a bank lending [unsecured] money and a supplier or other investor.

[facthunter]

Chancellor of the Exchequer sounds pretty terrifying..especially If He/She has the key to the Tower of London.. Look what they have done to Assange just for showing a few Photos of "Goodies" having fun with guns. Nev

[Yenn]

Assange has got to know what justice is. It is just lucky that the rest of us have managed to steer clear of it most of the time.

[kgwilson]

There is no such thing as justice, there is just a legal system.

[derekliston]

Watching the CMO on the box last night explaining why the Anzac Day fly-pasts were banned, said “A pilot getting into an aeroplane isn’t a medical threat, of course he isn’t” further explaining that the worry was people congregating to watch it! I’ll take her statement at face value. I, getting into my aeroplane am not a medical threat!

[Student Pilot]

There is no such thing as justice, there is just a legal system.

When a system is designed to be convoluted, complicated and very expensive it rules out representation of those without financial resources. There is the legal aid program, ask anybody who has worked in that as to it's success.

Seems wrong that if you can make an argument more complicated and take longer then you get rewarded accordingly. Also seems wrong if you muddy the waters with mega dollars from one of the biggest companies in the world and pay enough money you can get a convicted criminal off on a point of law. There's law and there's law, one for us and one for...................

[facthunter]

The more wealthy you are the more "JUSTICE" you get because only rich can afford it and it's only LAW and it can be an ASS based on precedent. Keep away from police and courts and your life will be more meaningful and serene. Nev..

[onetrack]

I considered taking a Bank to court once, for a very obvious breach of contract which cost me dearly. But the lawyer was very good, and his advice was pointed.

He said, "It will cost you a minimum of $300,000 (this was 1995) to initiate the lawsuit, and I can assure you the Bank will indulge in every strategy and delaying tactic, that ensure you run out of money, long before they do".

 

In the case of the Bell Group lawsuit, carried out at high level by W.A.'s State Govt Insurance Office (as a major creditor to the Bell Group, having lent the Group $150M) - whereby the lawsuit hinged around the argument that the Banks lent Bell Group money, when the Group was already insolvent - and as such, were not entitled to remain as secured creditors - the Banks ensured the lawsuit continued for 18 years without coming to a satisfactory legal conclusion.

 

At the 18 year mark, the Banks agreed to conciliation, whereby they offered $1.75B to settle the lawsuit, without incurring a legal result, of liability found against them.

 

But then, bystanders in the form of other unsecured creditors of the Bell Group, initiated claims on the money offered by the banks - without ever having been party to the original action.

The W.A. Govt, totally frustrated by the endless fiasco, then introduced State legislation, barring any further actions in relation to Bell Group monetary claims.

 

Then the aggrieved parties that came in late, looking for money, took the W.A. Govt to the High court, claiming the W.A. legislation was unconstitutional, and of course, the High Court judges agreed with them.

 

The arguments over the funds offered by the Banks were only just finally settled in Dec 2019 - but the final legal bill has been around $300M.

 

As the old saying goes - lawyers are the people who referee the fight, and keep the purse.

 

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/alan-bonds-bell-group-has-so-far-cost-a-staggering-263-million-in-legal-fees-and-charges-ng-b88785072z

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-21/decades-of-litigation-end-as-bell-group-claim-settles/11821040

[kgwilson]

Deep pockets are essential which is why most civil lawsuits are settled by mediation even when it is clear who is in the wrong. Take the Israel Folau case. He was clearly in breach of his contract and had been pulled up for it a year before & then did it again. Result, all settled with Rugby Australia paying him $5M they couldn't afford but the legal bill to go through the process would have been much worse.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I have heard that there are some lawyers who will act as a court in that they will tell both parties what would happen if they went to court. Apparently this service is much cheaper than the real thing, but obviously both parties have to agree to accept what is legally ( I think ) conciliation.

I don't personally know of any actual case of this. Mind you, I have tried to heed the advice to stay away from the whole scene.

[kgwilson]

Lawyers are bound to give you advice regarding expected costs including if you lose and the other side is awarded costs. If they don't & you can prove they didn't you can sue them for dereliction of duty. They often advise clients to go for mediation as it is normally the least costly way of settling an issue. If one party wants to mediate and the other doesn't the court can order mediation as the system is so clogged up with civil cases they try to keep it manageable. In a mediation you can have a court provided mediator at no cost or pay a professional mediator but you cannot claim any costs relating to the mediation. If the mediation fails you can still go to court but the costs continue to mount.

[turboplanner]

I have heard that there are some lawyers who will act as a court in that they will tell both parties what would happen if they went to court. Apparently this service is much cheaper than the real thing, but obviously both parties have to agree to accept what is legally ( I think ) conciliation.

I don't personally know of any actual case of this. Mind you, I have tried to heed the advice to stay away from the whole scene.

There have been quite a few cases in South Australia, but they are not exactly like that. Usually one of the lawyers starts with what he/she thinks the outcome will be then the other lawyer responds with his/her version and it gradually see saws to an agreement out of Court.

[Flightrite]

I think most realise that we have a very corrupt judicial system only workable for a select few with the funds! The rest of us are just peripheral fodder!

[facthunter]

Powerful defendant...Go your hardest. WE have deeper pockets than you have .. From lawyers working against US. using costly delaying tactics and worse Don't blame us. We are only the hired gun. From OUR lawyers Be interesting to be able to re run this case if we had a couple of extra million.

From reporters who print nothing like what happened, There's only 2 types of Journalists,, Those who work for Murdoch and those who are going to.....

No names no pack drill. This is the way it really is.

[jackc]

Powerful defendant...Go your hardest. WE have deeper pockets than you have .. From lawyers working against US. using costly delaying tactics and worse Don't blame us. We are only the hired gun. From OUR lawyers Be interesting to be able to re run this case if we had a couple of extra million.

From reporters who print nothing like what happened, There's only 2 types of Journalists,, Those who work for Murdoch and those who are going to.....

No names no pack drill. This is the way it really is.

 

At the end of the day, it’s all about the money......nothing else:-(

[spacesailor]

NO

It,s also about social status. A Lord, or any minor dignitary, will lord it over us Common mortals in any court battle.

E g , Lord Lucan, living in Australia, but never extridited, back to England to face a court of his peers !.

Charged with a murder.

spacesailof

[onetrack]

Spacey, if you know where Lord Lucan is living in Australia, I'm sure Scotland Yard would be interested to know his address! Or is he just one of the homeless layabouts, with no fixed address?

[spacesailor]

Quite well off, I saw him l a long time ago at my brotherinlaw,s house.

Laurathen kennels

spacesailor

[onetrack]

Unfortunately, there's just a little problem with identifying people of Anglo-Saxon ancestry today, accurately!

In the 12th Century, the population of the British Isles was around 2M people. But reportedly only 10% of those people left descendants!

 

So that makes all people of Anglo-Saxon ancestry today, descended from a pool of 200,000 Anglo-Saxon offspring of the 12th Century.

Accordingly, that makes every person of Anglo-Saxon ancestry today, a 36th cousin to every other person of Anglo-Saxon ancestry!

 

And that is the reason why so many people of Anglo-Saxon ancestry have similar faces, to the extent that numerous people are often said to have "twins"!

 

I don't believe any wanted person on Interpols list could hide in Australia, unless they positioned themselves in a very remote part of Australia.

[spacesailor]

OneTrack

Long before the European hoards invaded.[FLOATL][/FLOATL]

Vikings, saxons, normans and romans.

The English, Scot and Welsh, lived a rural lifestyle

.Not a million between them.

ALL the english were wiped out by the fourth wave of invaders.

Now our ancestors are french roman and anybody that could find a nice looking english partner.

SO that gene pool is much bigger the than expected ,!.

My own is English Austrian as well as the other four.

The wife is Spanish Irish plus the other four.

Our kids, some have Maori , german ,then whoever.

I,ll leave it there,

spacesailor

[onetrack]

The Celtic gene trail is quite interesting, and what it reveals, is often different to history records. What is revealing in gene tracing, is that many groups were not wiped out by any of the invaders.

The Romans particularly, had little genetic impact on the British people. But the Anglo-Saxons were the invaders that had the major overwhelming impact on British genes.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/18/genetic-study-30-percent-white-british-dna-german-ancestry

[spacesailor]

How many third or fouth generation Australians can say they,r their forfathers children, when their DNA is so far removed from the European mixed up DNA.

spacesailor