What is a liquidator?

What is a liquidator

A liquidator is a person appointed, in the winding up of a corporation, to assume control of the company’s affairs and to discharge its liabilities in preparation for its dissolution.  The appointment of a liquidator may be done voluntarily (by the proprietors) or via the courts (usually upon the application of a creditor – very often the ATO using a creditors statutory demand).

The process of the liquidator conducting the affairs of the company and realising its assets is called liquidation.

The liquidator’s role is to ascertain the liabilities (and assets) of the company, convert its assets into money, terminate its contracts, dispose of its business, distribute the net assets to creditors and any surplus (which is rare) to the shareholders and/or proprietors.

The liquidator will extinguish the company, lawfully, as a corporation on the records of ASIC by formal dissolution.

In determining the assets of a company, it is the liquidator’s duty to determine whether particular assets under the company’s control are owned by the company or others – i.e. stock may be purchased subject to a retention of title, vehicles may be on a corporate hire purchase and secured via a PPSR.

BAP can assist company directors to structure their assets and affairs, if not insolvent, in such a fashion to provide lawful asset protection.  To discuss how we can help to structure your company’s affairs and assets to provide maximum asset protection, please click here to book an appointment, call 1300-327123 (1300-DCP123), or complete the below form.

Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd / cherry growers of Orange class action and litigation further update from DCP Litigation Holdings Pty Ltd

Fiona Hall packing her bags

Thursday 14 November 2019, 5.50pm

Dear potential claimant,

Further to our class action potential claimants newsletter of late last week, we can now advise the following (also see our video) that, according to the attached title searches:

The identity of the purchaser, seemingly being a superfund, suggests the purchases were not intended to be debt financed – super funds find it difficult to borrow funds even mortgages.

The failure of Bernard Hall’s trustee company to purchase those properties, after some 115 days being available to them to raise finances, which it was contracted to purchase suggests things are not good in the Hall camp ….

With:

  • 4 related companies in liquidation,
  • a litigation war between Bernard and his family,
  • the failure to complete 4 out of 5 contracts* (with a $740,000 deposit seemingly at risk),
  • with a litigant seeking a judgment in the sum of around $620,000 and
  • other unknown issues under the surface,

suppliers and customers of Bernard’s company Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd, perhaps justifiably, may well have concerns about whether Caernarvon really is a going concern and long-term partner?

More detailed analysis will follow re what the above means (or may mean) to proposed class action participants.

More detailed information on the Hall’s is available on our webpages:

If you are interested in our class-action please complete the form here:  https://www.dcpartners.solutions/2019/07/caernarvon-class-action/ and complete the participants form or call us to discuss the nature of your exposure to the proposed defendants.
Yours faithfully,
call 1300-327123 (till late)
* records as at 4.53pm, 14 November 2019.

For more information – chat with us live using our instant chat tools (bottom corners), book an appointment or call now on 1300-327123 (till late).

To contact us with any tip-offs, files or information – please use the instant chat tools or form below:

Bernard Hall – updated profile

Bernard Francis Hall

Bernard Hall splashes out $8.2m (but fails to complete) – and as at 14 November 2019 – his companies still had only completed 1 of 5 purchases … 90% of the purchase prices still remains unpaid.  Moreover, 4 of Bernard’s companies are now in liquidation, yet despite this the liquidators seem in no hurry to, well, liquidate those 4 companies or their millions of dollars of real estate.

It seems a key assumption by Bernard Hall may be in error.  Bernard is quoted by the Central Western Daily as indicating a belief that he only needed to find the ‘other half’ of the equity he didn’t presently own in the Bonny Glen properties.

Bernard Hall - when $8m means $4m
Bernard Hall – when $8m means $4m

More than 106 days after the auction (as at 8 November 2019), Bernard and his company’s have failed to complete the purchase of 4 of the 5 Bonny Glen properties he bid to purchase at a cost of $8.15m.

In early November 2019, a notice to complete under those 4 incomplete contracts has been issued upon Bernard Hall making completion, at a final price of about $7.4m, time being of the essence, essential by the close of business on 14 November 2019.  As at the close of business on that day (yesterday), Bernard’s purchasing companies had failed to complete.

Bernard, husband of Fiona, is a director of the Bonny Glen companies (in liquidation) and holds a direct financial interest in those properties.

Despite this, it is believed that Bernard cannot simply transfer those interests to the purchasing vehicles, he had to complete the purchase contracts (it is believed) hence the notices to complete.

It would appear from Bernard’s quotes (see article above) he believed he could merely just pay a top up sum to buy out his brother and parents from the properties?  Did his Nuffield Scholar wife also hold this belief?

Bernard (with Fiona) is a joint shareholder and director of Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd and other related companies.

The family tree of the Bonny Glen and Hall family/s is below:

Hall family tree of businesses
Hall family tree of businesses

If you have any comments or information about Bernard & Fiona Hall, we’d love to hear from you including any documents using our instant chat, the below form or by phone on 1300-327123.

To contact us with any tip-offs, files or information – please use the instant chat tools or form below:

Bernard & Fiona Hall – property holdings

Hall family tree of businesses

Bernard & Fiona Hall, directly or indirectly (as at 8 November 2019) have interests in the following properties (subject to change).

At auction in Orange on 24 July 2019, Bernard Hall bid to purchase all 5 of the above properties.

Bernard has thus far (as at 8 November 2019) only completed the purchase of Brooklyn with a further $7.35m outstanding to purchase the above excluding Brooklyn.

Subject to orders of the NSW Supreme Court, these properties are in the process of being sold.

It is understood that a notice to complete has been served upon Bernard requiring him or his purchasing entities to complete the settlement of the 4 remaining properties by the close of business on 14 November 2019.  The possible ramifications of failing to complete are discussed here.

If you have any comments or information about Bernard & Fiona Hall, we’d love to hear from you including any documents via the instant chats below, through the below form or by phone on 1300-327123.

For more information – chat with us live using our instant chat tools (bottom corners), book an appointment or call now on 1300-327123 (till late).

To contact us with any tip-offs, files or information – please use the instant chat tools or form below:

Hakan Kutup charged with fraud and forgery, appears in court

Hakan Kutup

Hakan Kutup, a former Century 21 real estate agent appeared yesterday in the Wollongong Local Court.  Hakan, of 24 Stradbroke St, Shell Cove, has been the subject of other posts here on this website.  Hakan appeared in court charged in relation to 27 counts involving fraud, forgeries or conversion of money but we understand this number may increase?

How was Hakan Kutup able to carry out alleged crimes?

Mark Smith, Director of DC Partners was engaged after the alleged frauds were discovered by the victim, a local funds manager in Sydney.

Mark is the person who reported the matters to NSW Police and NSW Fairtrading.

Mark believe’s that NSW Fairtrading may have been negligent and is co-ordinating a class-action for potential victims of Hakan Kutup.  Class-action participants could include victims of Hakan’s company formerly Century 21 Ultimate Real Estate in Wollongong.

Mark alleges NSW Fairtrading knew or ought to have known about complaints about Hakan Kutup stretching back perhaps more than a decade and failed to investigate.

Mark is organising for those who are interested in joining a class action against the NSW Fairtrading and invites anyone who has lost money – no matter how small to complete the form below.

Interestingly, the Illawarra Mercury / Daily Telegraph hint at potentially more charges.  It is thought these may relate to the operations of a sales trust by Hakan Kutup?  These publications quote the court that there was uncovered “misappropriated funds” in the sum of $220,515 from a Sales Trust account.

DC Partners is keen to talk to or help any persons that have had negative dealings now matter how old or recently – please complete our contact form below (joining the class action is optional):

If readers have other information on the Kutup’s please feel free to complete the below form or email any tips to:  mark@markjsmith.com  or call  1300-327123 (7 days till late).

6 November 2019

DCP Litigation acknowledges the glacial speed NSW Fairtrading seems to work at?  We are considering helping a number of victims to pursue claims.  This may involve a class action against NSW Fairtrading.  We are also helping clients claim against the government’s Fidelity Fund or via the court’s.

In this regard, we are considering a class action for victims of Hakan Kutup perhaps against NSW Fairtrading?

Please complete the contact form to register an interest in joining the class action.  A class action requires a minimum of 7 claimants with the same loss against a common defendant.

Divorce finance

Divorce-finance

DCP Capital has developed what it believes is a first.  It has developed a divorce finance solution it can tailor to ensure all parties to a property settlement get a fair deal.

The solution came about when reviewing the plight of divorcing ladies.  Unfortunately, in some cases, the ladies lacked the financial strength to achieve a just and equitable deal.  A fair deal.

Divorce can be an expensive process involving legal concepts and consuming emotions.

The emotional toll can be higher when a divorcee’s assets are being dealt with.

If you want to discuss getting a better deal in your divorce, call us to discuss our divorce funding litigation service – call anytime on 1300-327123.  Alternatively, have your lawyers call us to discuss proper funding.

To view related blogs, case notes or otherwise, follow the following category links and tags below.

DCPLH v Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd – service agreement

Biteroit - Caernarvon Cherry

DCPLH is currently undertaking a statement of claim (as at 6 November 2019) in pursuit of an alleged debt owed by Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd to it, as assignee.

The claim seeks damages of upto $621,000 plus legal costs.

The matter is in the NSW District Court.

DCPLH has filed this statement of claim in late September 2019 with a defence due by the late November 2019.

DCPLH is also assisting a group of local fruit growers from the Orange District of NSW with preparations for a class-action against Caernarvon.  To view our class-action page – click here.

To view our main Caernarvon Cherry page – click here.

To view our main Hall family page – click here.

For more information – chat with us live using our instant chat tools (bottom corners), book an appointment or call now on 1300-327123 (till late).

To contact us with any tip-offs, files or information – please use the instant chat tools or form below:

 

Updated: 6 November 2019.

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (i.e. the ATO) v GSFPA

(Work in progress, more details to follow on this page).

Call our hotline anytime if you’ve received a creditors statutory demand, have a debt to the ATO or need corporate structuring advice – on 1300-327123.

To view related blogs, case notes or otherwise, follow the following category links and tags below.

DCPLH v the Estate of Elias Azzam

(Work in progress, more details to follow on this page).

  • DCPLH v the Estate of Elias Azzam (2 matters).
  • Matter 1, involves a potential insolvent trading claim.
  • Matter 2, as assignee, DCPLH is seeking equitable contribution from the estate of the co-surety pursuant to various mortgages and the obligations of the deceased.

To discuss the Estate of Elias Azzam, litigation funding or otherwise – please call us anytime on 1300-327123.

To view related blogs, case notes or otherwise, follow the following category links and tags below.

What is a creditors statutory demand?

The Corporations Act 2001 (“the Act”) provides for the conducting of business by a corporation in Australia.

Section 459E of the Act provides that a corporation may be served a statutory demand by a creditor (i.e. a creditor’s statutory demand) relating to (subsection 1):

                     (a)  a single debt that the company owes to the person, that is due and payable and whose amount is at least the statutory minimum; or

                     (b)  2 or more debts that the company owes to the person, that are due and payable and whose amounts total at least the statutory minimum.

 

Once served with such a demand, a company cannot ignore the demand.  The most serious of possible consequences for the company are now rolling out.  There are no friendly rules or casual arrangements, strict compliance with the demand is necessary by law.

Requirements

 

There are further other requirements such as:

             (2)  The demand:

                     (a)  if it relates to a single debt–must specify the debt and its amount; and

                     (b)  if it relates to 2 or more debts–must specify the total of the amounts of the debts; and

                     (c)  must require the company to pay the amount of the debt, or the total of the amounts of the debts, or to secure or compound for that amount or total to the creditor’s reasonable satisfaction, within 21 days after the demand is served on the company; and

                     (d)  must be in writing; and

                     (e)  must be in the prescribed form (if any); and

                      (f)  must be signed by or on behalf of the creditor.

             (3)  Unless the debt, or each of the debts, is a judgment debt, the demand must be accompanied by an affidavit that:

                     (a)  verifies that the debt, or the total of the amounts of the debts, is due and payable by the company; and

                     (b)  complies with the rules.

 

The key words above in each of the subsections are the words Must and AND.

The above requirements of the Act’s provisions are cumulative.  Skip any of the requirements and the consequences for the creditor’s demand is that it is potentially defective.

What happens next

Once a creditor’s statutory demand has been served upon a company, several things can happen:

  1. the recipient company pays the debt in full
  2. the company contacts the creditor and they negotiate a settlement
  3. the company applies to have the demand set aside – for instance if there has been a genuine disputing of the debt.
  4. the company does not respond, and the creditor applies to have it wound up

 

Next steps

If your company has received a creditor’s statutory demand, you have no time to waste.  Go straight to our “what to do next blog for further next steps – click here to book a consultation.

 

 

Call anytime on 1300-327123.

To view related blogs, follow the following category links and tags below.