3 ms·

Can someone clarify? He bought 19.9% of the voting shares, called for a meeting to dissolve the trust (what is the trust? Is the trust the same thing as BrisCon

Can someone clarify? He bought 19.9% of the voting shares, called for a meeting to dissolve the trust (what is the trust? Is the trust the same thing as BrisConnections?), then sold his shares to someone who wanted to ensure that BrisConnections continued to exist? Tricky and smart, but what is the value that BrisConnections holds and to which other people want access? Is it just the two upcoming installments that investors owe?

jakarta 17y ago
BrisConnections was developing a toll road, but the actual tollroad development assets were held in the trust for tax reasons. If the trust were to be dissolved as the development was in process, it would have killed the project. That's why his particular stake had so much value because it would help stave off the dissolution. Investors would owe the 2 upcoming installments. So he was going to owe $48M and another $48M for the next two installments. That's one of the incentives they too would have had for dissolving the project since the ones who picked up shares at $0.001 would also owe that money.
- boredguy8 17y ago
  Much thanks, that really clarifies the situation, but it also inspires further questions. So people purchasing shares were theoretically providing the investment funds to complete the toll road, and as a result of that risk, would have access to the profits of the toll road in proportion to their investment, correct? So BrisConnections doesn't want to see the fund dissolved because it loses all the capital represented by the $.001 investors by virtue of still owing $2, and Thiess John Holland wanted to maintain the entity that owed them a contract for building part of the road?
UpFromTheGut 17y ago
Feel free to correct me, but I believe the trust was funding for the ~$5B project that BrisConnections was beginning. If the trust was dissolved, BrisConnetions would be unable to complete their project. In order to protect their project, they purchased Bolton's voting rights.
- pyre 17y ago
  Bolton sold the rights to the contractor that was to build the toll road: > Bolton had already sold his voting rights to Thiess John Holland, the design and construction contractor for the Airport Link BrisConnections is the one that raised the money in trust (which was why they were meeting about dissolving the trust). > BrisConnections, backed by Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse Group, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Macquarie Bank, raised A$1.23B ($1.16B) in July last year through the sale of an unusual equity security called a stapled unit. Thiess John Holland bought the voting rights so that they wouldn't lose the contract with BrisConnections if it went under (which the dissolution of the trust would have caused). To them it was a deal since there was a lot more than A$4.5million at stake here. Bolton: 1. Bought a controlling share in the company/trust 2. Brought about a situation that would cause the company/trust to collapse (which a lot of other investors were in agreement with) 3. Sold his controlling share's voting rights off to someone that had an interest in seeing that BrisConnections didn't go under. 4. Still holds the shares that he's going to owe $1 on for the next to 'periods,' but separated the shares and the payment for voting rights so that he gets to keep the money and just let the other business die in debt.

jakarta 17y ago

BrisConnections was developing a toll road, but the actual tollroad development assets were held in the trust for tax reasons. If the trust were to be dissolved as the development was in process, it would have killed the project. That's why his particular stake had so much value because it would help stave off the dissolution. Investors would owe the 2 upcoming installments. So he was going to owe $48M and another $48M for the next two installments. That's one of the incentives they too would have had for dissolving the project since the ones who picked up shares at $0.001 would also owe that money.

boredguy8 17y ago
Much thanks, that really clarifies the situation, but it also inspires further questions. So people purchasing shares were theoretically providing the investment funds to complete the toll road, and as a result of that risk, would have access to the profits of the toll road in proportion to their investment, correct? So BrisConnections doesn't want to see the fund dissolved because it loses all the capital represented by the $.001 investors by virtue of still owing $2, and Thiess John Holland wanted to maintain the entity that owed them a contract for building part of the road?

UpFromTheGut 17y ago

Feel free to correct me, but I believe the trust was funding for the ~$5B project that BrisConnections was beginning. If the trust was dissolved, BrisConnetions would be unable to complete their project. In order to protect their project, they purchased Bolton's voting rights.

pyre 17y ago
Bolton sold the rights to the contractor that was to build the toll road: > Bolton had already sold his voting rights to Thiess John Holland, the design and construction contractor for the Airport Link BrisConnections is the one that raised the money in trust (which was why they were meeting about dissolving the trust). > BrisConnections, backed by Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse Group, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Macquarie Bank, raised A$1.23B ($1.16B) in July last year through the sale of an unusual equity security called a stapled unit. Thiess John Holland bought the voting rights so that they wouldn't lose the contract with BrisConnections if it went under (which the dissolution of the trust would have caused). To them it was a deal since there was a lot more than A$4.5million at stake here. Bolton: 1. Bought a controlling share in the company/trust 2. Brought about a situation that would cause the company/trust to collapse (which a lot of other investors were in agreement with) 3. Sold his controlling share's voting rights off to someone that had an interest in seeing that BrisConnections didn't go under. 4. Still holds the shares that he's going to owe $1 on for the next to 'periods,' but separated the shares and the payment for voting rights so that he gets to keep the money and just let the other business die in debt.