It is a familiar ritual in thousands of workplaces across Australia. During a tea break someone suggests the group pool a couple of dollars each week and buy a chance in the weekly Lotto draw. It is all very informal. There is always a volunteer who has the job of collecting the money and buying the ticket - and from time to time this gamble delivers a few dollars in small prizes - which is usually ploughed back into more chances whenever there is a jackpot draw.
Sometimes miracles do happen ! Last weekend a group of people working at a cable manufacturing company found that their ticket was the sole winner in a Lotto Jackpot draw and it delivered a prize of forty million dollars.
To be exact, it came to $40,465,165 and this was to be divided between the fourteen members of the Syndicate. The joy was almost unbelievable. Fourteen very ordinary people were incredibly rich and their lifestyle was forever changed, but that was just the start of what can happen when a substantial win is credited to " a Syndicate " !
This opens the door to endless acrimony and often this leads to protracted legal action. So it is with this forty million dollar win. There is a claim by a fifteenth employee that he is legally part of that syndicate and entitled to a share of the money. He has engaged a lawyer and it is likely that there will be an application to a court to delay the release of the funds until the ownership issue is settled.
The problem is that Syndicates are usually run on very casual lines. Membership is usually by a nod of the head around the table and people tend to lose interest and drop out from time to time. Some are reluctant to pony up their contribution on pay day, and it is rare for the arrangement to be consolidated by any written agreement.
Jealousy can be a motivating factor in many claims for a share of the prize. Sometimes a Syndicate is restricted to a hard core and new employees are not offered a chance to contribute. There is also a question mark hanging over a syndicate member who is on long service leave and not contributing to the pool. Usually the entire transaction boils down to whatever verbal arrangement is in place - and depends heavily on " hear-say " !
No doubt the public will be interested as this claim wends its way through the courts. With that sort of money at stake the best legal minds will be doing battle. It is quite possible that the number of claimants may widen if the arguments used suggest new opportunities.
It certainly should deliver a wake-up call to the organizers of other syndicates. The chances of winning such a motza are at incredible odds but they do happen - and with a little care the ownership of such a syndicate can be made watertight.
Having the paymaster deduct the syndicate contribution from each syndicate members pay would require each contributor to sign such a request - and authenticate syndicate membership. Should that person withdraw, that would require a similar written authority, and end membership from the date of activation.
Without such a scheme, really good fortune seems doomed to end in acrimony !
No comments:
Post a Comment