One of the experts please correct me if I am wrong but the creditors will get to vote on the fees at the variation meeting just like they do at a normal creditors meeting and they will likely be reduced.
But I agree, why should GT take another 30% for doing what they should of done a long time ago?
The Strongmaster case is pretty clear. If the IVA is set for a set time period, and there is no ability to extend the terms of the IVA within the body of the proposal or associated terms and conditions, then a variation cannot be proposed validly outside of that timescale. You should ask your individual IPs where they got the authority from to process such a procedure.
Are more fees being requested as part of the proposed variation terms?
