Fighting for Subbies Rights
I am unsure if CRCG Rimfire creditors received a copy of the minutes of the meeting so for those who haven't, I have posted a copy here on this link.
I doubt it because to send it out would cost a couple of hundred (sorry, I forgot, this is an administrator I am talking about, make that $5,000) and the administrator would be keen to keep as much of the $300,000 guarantee from CRCG in reserve for themselves. It's all about the almighty dollar, they act like rats with a gold chain. What a truly stinking, flea infested, leech ridden industry the liquidation of building companies is.
We have low life pre insolvency advisors openingly advertising to directors that they can show them how to hide assets. Desperate lawyers suing subbies left right and centre for preferences to ream every last cent out of the poor bastards and greedy "builder friendly" liquidators raking in $600 per hour for their juniors plus all the hangers on who charge like wounded bulls because its "only subbies money".
Three Month Extension
Lets not forget GT have asked for and been granted a 3 month extension.
That should give the administrators and their lawyers plenty of time for a nice break over the festive season so they can fly to their Island mansions and forget about the plight and financial ruin the QBCC and CRCG have caused to some of those lowly and ungrateful subbies.
They can put their White shoe clad feet under the table with their family and friends and enjoy a 5 star traditional roast Turkey meal washed down with the best Pinot Noir subbies money can buy.
Enjoy you cretins, but you have't earned it.
After all, another 3 months in limbo is not going to hurt those subbies, they are already f#@ked anyway.
The questions is, WHY?
We have some questions for CRCG Administrator Michael McCann. These questions have serious overtones and need to be answered.
Dear Mr McCann
CRCG Rimfire Pty ltd (Administrators Appointed)(“the Company”)
Deficient Minutes
We are in receipt of a copy of the minutes of the first meeting of creditors. I note the minutes are silent in relation to who was the proxy present for each respective creditor. The attendance schedule, whilst attached, is deficient in terms of the name of the creditor who is said to have been representing the voting creditor and so has provided no assistance in this regard.
We note that Insolvency Practice Rules 75-150(4) state that “A record of the persons present in person, by proxy or by attorney at a meeting must be prepared and kept as part of the minutes of proceedings prepared under subsection (1)”.
We note that in your affidavit dated 11 December 2017, you listed the proof of debts that were lodged and admitted for voting at the first meeting of creditors. There were 35 admitted for voting.
We note that you did not admit any employee claims. We note that the tally of all the polls show 38 creditors voting. I would like to know how this is possible and as such, we would like a proper breakdown of who voted in favour, against and abstained for each resolution.
In addition, please advise us;
- Which creditors were present?
- Who acted as their proxy?
- How much they claimed to be owed?
- How much you admitted them for voting?
We would also like to know whether you intend to amend the minutes and re lodge them with ASIC so they comply with the Rules.
China Railway - $5.3m
The minutes note that the proof of debt from CRCG was admitted in 2 parts.
We would like a copy of the proof of debt, together with the supporting documentation (or perhaps an explanation from you) that enabled the Chair to determine that they could claim as creditors for bank guarantees that were issued by the Company.
We presume there is some entitlement to subrogation and we would like to understand what that might be.
Similarly please can you provide some background to their entitlement to claim for the consulting fees of $2.2m.
As you will recall, at the time you admitted the CRCG proof of debt in full, Mr Berry raised an objection to the claim being admitted for voting. You noted his objection as detailed below and said you would consider the matter further. In view of the undertaking to review the Deed of Covenant provided at the meeting, we should be grateful if you would now advise us whether CRCG had any entitlement to lodge a claim or whether Mr Berry’s allegation that CRCG would not prove in any insolvency is correct and CRCG should not have been admitted for voting. Please advise.
Devcorp Claims
We note that you admitted Shaftston Avenue Construction Pty Ltd and 28 Baxter Street Pty Ltd for $1 each, despite your affidavit noting that there is no contact between the Company and these entities and in fact, they are listed in the Company’s RATA as debtors. Please can you advise if you will be admitting these claims at any future meetings as it would appear that they have no entitlement to vote.
With respect to Lincoln Street Construction Pty Ltd, we note the claim was admitted for voting in the amount of $2.563 million.
Please can you provide us a copy of the Proof of debt and details relating to the rationale for admitting it in the amount of $2.563m and whether you plan to admit the claim for this amount at any future meetings.