Exhibit 16 for Affidavit of Daniel Mathew Bryant - Arnold Bloch Leibler

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
r43.06
CORPORATIONS LIST
s ct 2013
tN THE MATTER OF GUNNS PLANTATTONS LTMITED (rN LTQUIDATION) (RECEIVERS &
MANAGERS APPOINTEDXACN 091 232 209) in its capacity as the responsible entity of
the managed investment schemes listed in Schedule 1
DANIEL MATHEW BRYANT, IAN MENZIES CARSON and CRAIG DAVID CROSBIE (in
their capacities as joint and several Liquidators of GUNNS PLANTATIONS LIMITED (¡N
LfQUf DATTONXRECEIVERS & MANAGERS APPOINTEDXACN 091 2322091
First Plaintiffs
and
cUNNS pLANTATTONS LtMtTED (rN LTQUTDATIONXRECEIVERS & MANAGERS
APPO|NTEDXACN 091 232 2O9l in its capacity as the responsible entity of the
managed investment schemes listed in Schedule 1
Second Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE IDENTIFYING EXHIBIT
Date of document:
Filed on behalf of:
Prepared by:
ARNOLD BLOCH LEIBLER
Lawyers and Advisers
Level 21
333 Collins Street
MELBOURNE 3OOO
26 April 2013
the Plaintiffs
Solicitor's Code: 54
DX 38455 Melbourne
Tel: 9229 9999
Fax: 9229 9900
Ref: 01-1740130
(Justin Vaatstra - jvaatstra@abl.com.au)
This is the exhibit marked 'DMB-16" now produced and shown to DANIEL MATHEW
BRYANT at the time of affirming his affidavit on 26 April 2013
Before me
JULIA PAULA KRETZENBACHER
Arnold Bloch Lslbler
Level2l, 303 Collins Street
!ffi
Exhibit "DMB-16"
Copy of letter from PPB Advisory to Macquarie dated 5
April 2013
16

'Drnß-lt"
5 April 2013
Mr P Lucas
Executive Director
Macquarie Specialised I nvestment Solutions
Macquarie Bank Limited
No. 1 Martin Place
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear Sir
Gunns Plantations Limited
ACN 091 232209
(Receivers and Managers Appointed) (ln Liquidation) (GPL)
GPL Woodlot Schemes 2000 - 2006, 2008 & 2009 (Schemes)
We wish to inform you that for the reasons set out below, we have formed that view that it is in the
growers' best interest for the liquidators to pursue an application through the Court for a power of sale
(POS) in relation to the assets of the Schemes, and to desist from any further activity in relation to your
interest in the Schemes.
We have arrived at this view after lengthy consideration of the following issues
1. our analysis of the projected economic returns to the growers and various stakeholders (taking
into account the advice of independent experts and your proposed fee structures) indicates that
the ongoing pursuit of your alternate responsible entity (RE) proposal is likely to produce a result
that would be less beneficial, than would result from a sale of the assets of the Schemes now
pursuant to a Court approved POS
2. your proposed amendments to the constitutions may be onerous to growers and may adversely
affect the value of their interest in the Schemes
3. the time likely to be necessary to complete the alternate RE process given your requirement for
various Court approvals compared to the time necessary to achieve a sale of scheme assets now
pursuant to a Court approved POS. ln particular, we are concerned that time delays may have a
material adverse effect on the assets of the Schemes in terms of:
a. ongoing costs
b. the risk of further default or termination of various agreements (including leases, forestry
rights deeds, maintenance arrangements and certification)
c. leaving the incumbent RE in an unfunded position in the interim, which may render the
RE unable to pedorm necessary maintenance prior to and during the next fire season
4. the impact of various defaults and terminations of leases and forestry rights deeds, in so far as:
a. your alternate RE proposal does not adequately address how existing defaults will be
rectified and suggests the need for the incumbent RE to commence relief against
forfeiture proceedings, leaving growers with the inherent costs and risk of any such Court
applications
Levol 2'1, lB1 Wiltiam Street
f,¿lotbourne VIC 3000
; { ô1 3 9269 4000
r +61 3 9269 40gg
I 1'.:il):'r, Ii'.1\ :, all
i)Fll piyllr.l tradinÉ¿rì FPH/vlvieory AÉ.ìN 67 97 104 /1t
I rrbility ltni leC by r srohcrne aDpr 0vÈd undcr f)r.r felìlìioDêl çtäî.jar dít i e8¡rrlåtjtn
FP0 P ly I td lìa1ì ôs5ocr¡'¡t('d bul i r rdcper rrJê¡r1 ê¡tltleli ¡nd pòr t^crrihi95

. the principal landlord of the Gunns peppercorn leases (i.e. the receivers and managers)
has proposed a standstill on the enforcement of existing defaults, on condition that a sale
of the scheme assets is pursued via a POS process, thereby eliminating a substantial
and material cost and risk to the assets of the Schemes
5. the potential impact of pursuing an alternate RE on grower loans, in so far as:
a. a restructure of the Schemes (as proposed) may be a material event of default under the
terms of grower loans, thereby placing a number of the growers at material economic risk
from the resultant obligation to repay loans, in full, immediately
b. the receivers and manager of Gunns Finance Pty Ltd (which holds grower loans) has
indicated a preparedness to agree with growers that a sale of the Scheme assets will not
constitute an event of default under the loans, provided the proceeds from sale of
Scheme assets are applied in reduction of loan balances
6. the uncertainty remaining regarding the proposed alternate RE and the likelihood that the
conditions you have imposed on the change of RE being satisfied on a timely basis.
We would be happy to discuss these reasons with you and any future role you see that Macquarie may
have in the liquidators' processes. However, our assessment of the risks to growers associated with
continuing to pursue your alternate RE process, when considered in light of the recent proposals which
have been made to protect growers (e.9. the standstill of lease defaults and the non-default of grower
loans), has resulted in us concluding that a Court approved POS process is in the best interests of
growers.
We thank you for Macquarie's contribution to the alternate RE process.
Yours faithfully
P-,gr-l
Daniel Bryant
Partner
PPB Advisory
PPBArx,tr