A question that has not been asked is what part if any does the ANZ play in Gunns’ titanic struggle to remain solvent?
The ANZ as lead banker to Gunns did not underwrite the Pulp Mill.Why?
Has the ANZ been behind Gunns asset sales, so reducing its exposure and reducing debt?
It could be suggested that the ‘going it alone ‘ to build a mill is in fact a smokescreen to allow the ANZ to take the money from asset sales without having to share the spoils with others should a Liquidator be appointed, Would the bank care to comment?.
It has been suggested that Gunns was going into liquidation on the day the shares fell to 20 cents .
Was someone ‘in the know ‘causing a 20% fall in the share price over the 3 days?
The ABC seemed to have been working on an important Gunns story on that Thursday, the day of suspension.That story came to nothing.
Has the ANZ provided an indemnity to Gunns Directors so that do not have to worry over solvency? - perhaps they would like to comment.
If so would this enable Gunns to ask for ASX suspension so that any funds coming from Government would be an asset that could possibly be kept by the Bank providing the company was not in Liquidation?
Gunns owes money in Tasmania and appears to be resisting payment. I ask, is the Bank holding the cheque book?
The above are all important Questions and require answers to their shareholders from Gunns and their bankers the ANZ.
I suggest that Gunns and through them Forestry Tasmania, with their knowledge, resources and expertise in the paper, pulp, timber and carbon sequestration industries, are obvious targets for asset stripping through the use of predatory loans and odious debt.
The discovery of private equity loans, off book partnerships, special purpose entities and concealed debt destroyed Enron and its auditors .
I ask does KPMG have a comment?