Posted on Leave a comment

Bernard Hall – companies in liquidation

Bernard Francis Hall

Company director Bernard Francis Hall has 4 companies now in liquidation.

These companies include:

All 4 companies have DW Advisory as liquidator.

Particulars of the liquidations, including the first report to creditors can be located on DW Advisory’s website here.

Despite having been appointed almost 2 months ago, DW Advisory has not realised 90% by value of the sale of the Bonny Glen partnership properties (according to title searches of 14 November 2019) auctioned in Orange on 24 July 2019.

We understand some of Bernard’s remaining companies continue to rent properties from the liquidator despite having contracts that required them to complete the sales in September 2019 – 2 months ago – still incomplete?  An inspection of the title’s of the subject properties in the hands of the liquidator’s states:

“NO CERTIFICATE OF TITLE HAS ISSUED FOR THE CURRENT EDITION OF THIS FOLIO.  CONTROL OF THE RIGHT TO DEAL IS HELD BY WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION.”  

We further understand there is an allegation that the liquidator has failed to collect 1 or more years rent from Bernard’s lessee company?  Whilst there may be sound business reason for not collecting this rent from Bernard’s company (?), DCP sincerely hope the interests of all creditors (not just interests associated with Bernard Hall) are being protected by DW Advisory in their trusted role as liquidator?  We understand complaints have been made about aspects of the liquidator’s conduct to date to bodies including ASIC and other regulators?

Below is a partial overview of the Hall families business structure.

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 via the instant chats below, through the below form or by phone on 1300-327123.

Correct as at 14 November 2019.

Posted on Leave a comment

Fiona Hall (packing her bags) – profile

Fiona Hall packing her bags

How does someone become a Nuffield Scholar?

 

… Get your bestie to write the application?  Well that was Fiona Hall’s idea.

First, in mid 2014 she enquired with me whether I’d write the application for her (I didn’t and I am not her bestie).

Shortly thereafter the application was written by Mr Andrew Borrodell Gartrell (at the time a friend), the rest is history.  To see Fiona’s email to me click here, to see Fiona’s email to Gartrell click here.

Fiona, wife of Bernard, is not a director of any of the Bonny Glen companies and held no direct financial interest in those properties.

Fiona however is a joint shareholder and director of Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd and other related companies.

As at 8 November 2019, she does not own any direct interest in the Caernarvon homestead, Caernarvon orchard or Caernarvon shed.

Below is parts of the Hall’s family business structure and landholdings.

Hall family tree of businesses
Hall family tree of businesses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Below is Fiona’s speech at the Nuffield Australia National Conference 2016 via Youtube.

Here Fiona ‘champions’ access for growers to data.

It will be interesting to see Fiona’s approach and response to subpoenas – should they be issued – in the proposed class action by cherry growers.

 

Another video interview by Fiona discussing the need for farm profitability.  Caernarvon is well known as having delivered ‘bills’ to fruit growers who sent their fruit to Caernarvon to be packed and sold, i.e. the net return to the grower was negative after deducting Caernarvon’s packing and marketing costs and the fruit ‘sold’.  It is unclear whether Caernarvon has at all times complied with the Horticultural Code of Conduct?

 

 

 

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.

 

Posted on Leave a comment

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.

 

 

Posted on Leave a comment

Hall family overview – Bernard & Fiona and Bonny Glen Fruits Pty Ltd.

Hall family tree of businesses

Below is an overview of the corporate structure of the Hall family, being the family of Frederick Charles Hall & Pamela Therese Hall.

The Hall’s also own a range of properties discussed here on a related page – click here.

Relevant members of the Hall family for the purposes of this profile are:

Frederick Charles Hall – father

Pamela Therese Hall – mother

Bernard Francis Hall & Fiona Catherine Hall – son and daughter in law

Timothy Simon Hall – brother of Bernard (but not relevant to the class action as a defendant).

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 via the instant chats below, through the below form or by phone on 1300-327123.

 

 

 

Posted on Leave a comment

Hakan Kutup arrested, what next?

Hakan Kutup

Arrest

DC Partners has been assisting the victim of a crime for some months.

As reported, on 6 September 2019, Hakan KUTUP (“Hakan“) attended Lake Illawarra Police Station.  Hakan participated in an interview and was charged with:

  • 12 x Fraud,
  • 12 x Forgery,
  • 3 x Fraudulent conversion of money.

Hakan was granted strict conditional bail and will appear at Wollongong Local Court on 5 November 2019.

For other victims

DC Partners wishes to encourage anyone who has been a victim of a crime to report these immediately to NSW Police.  Specifically locals in the Illawarra should contact Lake Illawarra Police and detectives at 6 Pioneer Drive, Oak Flats 2529.

But, in addition, DC Partners are separately keen to hear from anyone who may have had past dealings with:

  1. Hakan during his time with ParkTrent Properties (aka Rotten Ron Cross),
  2. Century 21,
  3. Century 21 Ultimate Real Estate or elsewhere.

The previous dealings could be involving persons who have:

  1. not had rental bond’s deposited correctly,
  2. had suspicious charges added that they were not expecting,
  3. made previous complaints to NSW Fairtrading,
  4. received late rental payments,
  5. received no rental payments,
  6. not received rental bonds back at the end of a tenancy or otherwise.

No amount too big or too small.

Hakan’s family in property

Similarly, anyone with any similar experiences when dealing with relatives of Hakan KUTUP may also be of interest?  Other relatives of Hakan Kutup seemingly involved in property include:

Other remedies

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.

NSW Fairtrading class action

join
Posted on 1 Comment

DCPLH v Bargo Developments Pty Ltd (in liquidation), Craig Matthew Adams and others

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

Bargo was the one-time owner of 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural NSW purchased from Mohan Kumar (with assistance from Ralph Paligaru).

DCPLH is the assignee of the secured debts of Mohan Kumar, Reliance Leasing, and Ralph & Amreeta Paligaru (owners of Dural Alliances Pty Ltd).

Together DCPLH is owed some $6,000,000+ as assignee of these debts.

To discuss this project, litigation funding, Bargo, Craig Adams, Australasian, Ralph Paligaru or others – call anytime on 1300-327123.

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

 

 

Posted on Leave a comment

DCPLH v Golden Arrow International Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

golden arrow 3

Golden Arrow International Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (“Golden Arrow”) is a creditor to DCPLH (as the assignee of Ralph Ignatius Paligaru, Amreeta Paligaru and Dural Alliances Pty Ltd, together “the Paligaru’s”).

Craig Adams was the director of Golden Arrow and other companies placed into liquidation in mid to late 2018.

Golden Arrow was the owner of a large development site sold for $16,700,000.

DCPLH is the assignee of the Paligaru’s debt where it seems, an unsecured creditor, Australasian Property Group Pte Ltd may have been paid a preference payment (in preference to the Paligaru’s, our assignors) or the payment and the security it received may be voidable?

These alleged facts may become the subject of litigation before the NSW Supreme Court in the coming months (as from June 2019)?

Anyone interest to discuss Golden Arrow, Craig Adams, Australasian or the Paligaru’s can call us anytime on 1300-327123.

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

Posted on 2 Comments

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.

 

Posted on 2 Comments

What to do when served with a creditor’s statutory demand?

Firstly, don’t panic (straight away).  Think clearly.

For starters, it is a good idea to understand exactly what a creditor’s statutory demand (“the demand”) is?

Our related blog page is a good place to start?  It explains what a demand is in some detail.  That blog should be read if this is the first time your business has received such a demand.

But, make no mistake, a creditor’s statutory demand can have very serious consequences.

You, the director, must immediately action it by following the steps as suggested below.  Otherwise, in consultation with ourselves, action the demand using our free introductory review.

Once you’ve read this present blog and you know what a creditor’s statutory demand is, the focus moves to what now?  What to do next?

But first ….

Who, what, when, where, why, how?  

It’s a useful practice in business to always be considering these pointed questions.

But, they are probably best considered before a creditor’s demand is received.  Ideally when or before a debt is incurred.

Our separate blog on good debt practices may also be a helpful place for a business, particular if the director thinks it may be headed for a cashflow squeeze?

Having however incurred a debt, and now having been served with the demand, the director must consider what next?

The questions above are a helpful place to start.

  1. Who is making the demand?  Did you business incur a debt from this entity?  Was the debt actually incurred by the business that is named on the demand?  If not, the demand may be able to be set-aside, or better still, maybe the creditor will withdraw it without much fuss?  The demand’s requirements, discussed in another blog, are highly precise with no leeway for error.
  2. What is the demand saying your company owes?  Demands can only be issued to corporations, so if you’ve received a demand against you personally then it will not be of any effect.  Additionally, the amount owed must be for at least $2000.  If the debt is under $2000 presently, the demand is of no effect.  Assuming the demand is made out to the correct legal entity and is in excess of $2000, read on.
  3. When was the demand served on your premises?  This is both a technical and legal question.  If the article has come through the post (in the ordinary course of postage) the item is presumed to have arrived several days after post mark on the envelope.  It’s always an excellent idea to retain the envelop with the post-mark.  This can be very useful.  Is some instances, we’ve been able to get very large creditor’s statutory demands set aside for minor deficiencies (see blog – ATO v GSFPA link tba).  Can you answer this when question precisely?
  4. Where was the debt incurred, where is the jurisdiction of the loan, tax debt or other facility?  This is less relevant, but in some cases it can make a difference where the demand was served, where it was sent from (if posted from overseas), where it was left (if it wasn’t served at the company’s premises).  If in doubt as to whether procedures have been complied with, call us for your free initial review appointment.
  5. Why – why is the demand being used now?  Is the debt out of time?  Why is the demand being used rather than other debt collection techniques – this can be a very important question particularly if the debt was ever disputed (see our good practice blog).
  6. How?  How was it served?  How long ago was it served?  How was the debt incurred?  This last one is often highly relevant.  Whether a debt such as a PAYG or GST ATO tax debt has been incurred over several months or longer, or has continued to grow over time – can suggest bigger overall issues within the business?  For instance, if a business has been unable to fully pay its super, GST or PAYG ATO debt on time each quarter, or when due, the company may need to look more closely at itself?  Is the company trading profitably?  Is the owner taking too much in drawings?  Are overheads too high?  Are fixed or variable costs too high?  Our advisory service can offer a range of excellent solutions to a business to enable them to restructure and avoid cashflow issues, insolvency and worse.  A free introductory business review is available to assess a company’s issues and potential solutions.

After answering these questions, act.

It is critically important, after receiving a creditors statutory demand that the company does not ignore it (and hope it goes away).

Yet some business owners can be embarrassed to discuss these issues with their accountants.

The law provides only a short period after receipt of the demand to take action – so it is critical that action is not delayed.

Business Asset Protection offers a free introductory first session to help a director work through the above and other relevant questions.

Our service is judgement free and focussed very much on solutions to the present problem.

Our available solutions are often more comprehensive than merely negotiating an extension of time to pay the ATO.

Whilst we can often provide tax debt loans, often times a range of other solutions may also be better suited to some clients?  These can dramatically simplify your business and give it a fresh start.

If your company has received a creditors statutory demand and is unable to, or unwilling to pay the claimed debt, call us to schedule a free appointment – obligation free – on 1300-327123 (1300-DCP123) or click our free appointment scheduling link.  Our service

 

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