Steve Papermaster and Nano Global Inc have finally done the right thing and consented to (not oppose) judgment in the amount of $2,268,972.60 as of June 29, 2022 in favour of NAAM US LLC.
To view the entire judgment click here:
NAAM US LLC v Nano Global, Steve Papermaster – judgment order
What do you think the prospects of NAAM US LLC collecting this sum from Nano or Steve Papermaster may be?
Tip-offs – have we forgotten anyone?
Are you aware of failed Papermaster companies or enablers – complete our tip-off form below, send documents, or instant chat with us. Thank you.
#whoisstevepapermaster
Leave a Reply – nothing defamatory will be permitted, all comments moderated. Spam will not be approved. Cancel reply
[…] Arun Kant […]
[…] Hill Capital has played a role in enabling alleged fraudster Steve Papermaster to raise millions of dollars …. adding…
[…] Dealing with debtors […]
[…] Dealing with debtors […]
[…] What creditor negotiations support can you offer? […]
Agillion stands for “Agility for the Millions,” the original concept that Frank Moss and Steve Papermaster, the founders of Agillion, were after when they wanted to deliver an enterprise-type solution at a small-business price.
Overview Agillion claimed to enable companies to provide customers with a level of service they’ve never encountered online – or anywhere else. By creating Agillion Personal Pages – custom, password-protected web sites that were accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week – it claimed it would ·
Let your customers place and check on the status of orders, alert you to problems, retrieve documents you’re collaborating on together, write you a note, download a product catalog, etc.
Capture customer information in real-time and securely store it in a central database that your Team can access from any web browser.
Focus on your top customers by receiving reminders and important alerts about their activity.
Agillion was founded in October 1998. The company was backed by more than $40 million in first-round financing by lead investor Goldman Sachs and by Cisco Systems, Morgan Stanley & Co., Hambrecht & Quist, Integral Capital Partners, Insight Capital Partners and MSD Capital.
How Steve Papermaster reportedly squandered $40m is discussed below.
Agillion Company Milestones
July 2001
July 24, 2000
Bankruptcy
Agillion and MySoftware, a division of ClickAction, announce a strategic partnership to offer the Agillion service as a packaged retail product and to integrate Agillion into MySoftware’s desktop products.
July 10, 2000
Office Depot and Agillion announce strategic partnership to providing needed services to the growing small business market
July 3, 2000
dbusiness.com names Agillion as one of the “Top 50 Private Companies in Austin.”
June 27, 2000
Agillion taps former FedEx CIO as its first Board of Directors member; names Dave Henkel as Agillion’s chief operating officer
June 6, 2000
Agillion launches first global operation in Australia
May 15, 2000
Agillion named one of Upside magazine’s “Hot 100 Private Companies” about to ignite the technology scene
May 8, 2000
Agillion named industry veterans Alex Kuli as executive vice president of sales and Mike O’Rourke as executive vice president of development and operations.
April 19, 2000
dbusiness.com includes Agillion as one of its “50 to Watch” list of emerging companies, a list of the most dynamic private and public small- to medium-cap companies in 18 markets
Feb. 23, 2000
Agillion launches full-featured version of its Web-based service to help growing businesses focus on their customers with personalized communication
Jan. 24, 2000
DigitalSouth magazine names Agillion one of the “50 Companies to Watch in 2000,” recognizing the quality of the management team, financial backers and marketing opportunity
Dec. 13, 1999
Agillion joins forces with Employease, works.com and eight other Internet companies in a new industry initiative to expedite the availability of Internet Business Services for small and medium-sized businesses, projected to be a $6.6 billion market by 2003.
Nov. 15, 1999
Agillion joins the Cisco Resource Network, an industry group dedicated to providing information, tools and resources to help small and medium-sized businesses fully participate in the Internet economy
Nov. 8, 1999
Agillion secures over $40 million in first-round financing from lead investor Goldman Sachs & Co. and strategic and financial investors Cisco Systems, Morgan Stanley & Co., Integral Capital Partners, MSD Capital and Hambrecht & Quist.
Nov. 8, 1999
Agillion appoints blue-chip advisory board comprising Internet industry rainmakers, entrepreneurs and thought-leaders with track records building successful e-businesses, including: Amazon.com, America Online, broadcast.com, Cisco Systems, Dataquest, Dell Computer Corporation, EDS, HotMail, Tivoli Systems and Vignette
Oct. 4, 1999
Agillion previews new Internet Business Service, eliminating barriers that separate companies from their customers. Available free through February 2000, the service lets businesses, their partners and their customers interact anywhere, anytime over the Web to achieve one-to-one customer selling and service.
Oct. 12, 1998
Technology industry veterans Frank Moss and Steve Papermaster form Agillion Inc., a new company that will deliver sophisticated customer relationship management functions to small and medium-sized businesses as services over the Internet.
· Stephen R. Douty, former vice president, sales, marketing and business development of Hotmail
· Ross Garber, co-founder of Vignette
· Judith H. Hamilton, former chief executive officer of Dataquest and current chief executive officer of Classroom Connect, Inc.
· Nick Hanauer, chairman of Avenue A Media
· Alexander Kuli, former senior vice president of worldwide sales at Tivoli Systems
· Tom Meredith, senior vice president and chief financial officer for Dell Computer Corp.
· Morton H. Meyerson, former president and founder of EDS, former chief executive officer of Perot Systems and current chairman and chief executive officer of 2M Companies, Inc.
· Jerry Michalski, former editor of the Release 1.0 technology newsletter and current president of Sociate
· Mark Seriff, co-founder of America Online, Inc.
· Peter Solvik, chief information officer of Cisco Systems
· Tina Williamson, former vice president of marketing of broadcast.com.
Bankruptcy trustee claims Papermaster, other Agillion execs ‘squandered’ assets
Apr 22, 2003, 10:48am CDT
By Colin Pope – Austin Business Journal Staff
Six of Agillion Inc.’s former top executives have been sued by a U.S. bankruptcy trustee for the legendary spending sprees that bankrupted one of the most well-financed and well-known high-tech startups in Austin.
U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee Marsha Milligan — the person charged with protecting the interests of hundreds of creditors collectively owed more than $20 million — on Thursday sued Agillion co-founders Steve Papermaster, Frank Moss and four other executives and board members for breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence and waste after they “irrationally squandered Agillion’s assets,” according to the suit, filed in Travis County District Court.
The suit comes well after Agillion burned through more than $60 million in less than three years — and nearly two years after the company filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation. At its zenith, the company employed about 125 people.
Agillion, which offered a Web service that helped businesses maintain vital information about their customers, filed for bankruptcy in July 2001 with about $100 in the bank. Just 15 months before, Agillion had $30 million in the bank, according to the suit.
Between the product launch date, Feb. 23, 2000, and the bankruptcy filing more than a year later, Agillion had only a “few dozen subscribers” to its Web-based service, the suit claims.
“Their revenue was so inconsequential that management never recorded a single dollar in revenue in their internal bookkeeping,” the suit alleges.
Despite the poor performance, “Agillion’s management increased their wasteful spending,” the suit states.
The 17-page lawsuit — filed by Donald Taylor of the Austin law firm Taylor & Dunham LLP — contains a detailed list of events outlining Agillion’s spending habits.
Among the events listed in the suit:
Spending more than $3 million on a 30-second commercial during the 2000 Super Bowl. The spot aired a month before Agillion launched its product.
Spending about $500,000 to take all Agillion employees on an all expenses-paid trip to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico.
Despite earning only a “few hundred dollars in the U.S.,” Agillion opened an office in Australia, which closed six months later.
Agillion entered into a $13 million, 10-year lease at Stonecreek Park on North MoPac Expressway that the suit alleges was “lavish and unnecessary.”
Tripling the size of its workforce only to lay off many within months.
Spending more than $430,000 during the first three months of 2000 to sponsor several events, such as South by Southwest, “Austin City Limits” and the 360 Summit.
Spending “tens of thousands” of dollars on several company parties, such as a “Casino Night” Christmas party in 2000 and a Super Bowl party at Dave & Buster’s, where Agillion bought 168 bottles of wine.
An exhibit attached to the suit is a copy of a color photograph of Papermaster — as the master of ceremonies during the Cabo San Lucas trip — wearing a sombrero and riding a horse on the beach as he talks to his employees with a wireless microphone.
Papermaster was Agillion’s co-founder and CEO. Papermaster stepped down as CEO in November 2000 and was replaced by Jim Travers, who is listed as a defendant.
Moss — former president and chairman of Austin’s Tivoli Systems Inc. software company — was an Agillion co-founder and chairman of its advisory board.
Last August, Papermaster announced he formed and invested in an Austin-based software startup called CooperaTech Inc., where he is chairman.
Bankruptcy trustee claims Papermaster, other Agillion execs ‘squandered’ assets
Apr 22, 2003, 10:48am CDT
By Colin Pope – Austin Business Journal Staff
Six of Agillion Inc.’s former top executives have been sued by a U.S. bankruptcy trustee for the legendary spending sprees that bankrupted one of the most well-financed and well-known high-tech startups in Austin.
U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee Marsha Milligan — the person charged with protecting the interests of hundreds of creditors collectively owed more than $20 million — on Thursday sued Agillion co-founders Steve Papermaster, Frank Moss and four other executives and board members for breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence and waste after they “irrationally squandered Agillion’s assets,” according to the suit, filed in Travis County District Court.
The suit comes well after Agillion burned through more than $60 million in less than three years — and nearly two years after the company filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation. At its zenith, the company employed about 125 people.
Agillion, which offered a Web service that helped businesses maintain vital information about their customers, filed for bankruptcy in July 2001 with about $100 in the bank. Just 15 months before, Agillion had $30 million in the bank, according to the suit.
Between the product launch date, Feb. 23, 2000, and the bankruptcy filing more than a year later, Agillion had only a “few dozen subscribers” to its Web-based service, the suit claims.
“Their revenue was so inconsequential that management never recorded a single dollar in revenue in their internal bookkeeping,” the suit alleges.
Despite the poor performance, “Agillion’s management increased their wasteful spending,” the suit states.
The 17-page lawsuit — filed by Donald Taylor of the Austin law firm Taylor & Dunham LLP — contains a detailed list of events outlining Agillion’s spending habits.
Among the events listed in the suit:
Spending more than $3 million on a 30-second commercial during the 2000 Super Bowl. The spot aired a month before Agillion launched its product.
Spending about $500,000 to take all Agillion employees on an all expenses-paid trip to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico.
Despite earning only a “few hundred dollars in the U.S.,” Agillion opened an office in Australia, which closed six months later.
Agillion entered into a $13 million, 10-year lease at Stonecreek Park on North MoPac Expressway that the suit alleges was “lavish and unnecessary.”
Tripling the size of its workforce only to lay off many within months.
Spending more than $430,000 during the first three months of 2000 to sponsor several events, such as South by Southwest, “Austin City Limits” and the 360 Summit.
Spending “tens of thousands” of dollars on several company parties, such as a “Casino Night” Christmas party in 2000 and a Super Bowl party at Dave & Buster’s, where Agillion bought 168 bottles of wine.
An exhibit attached to the suit is a copy of a color photograph of Papermaster — as the master of ceremonies during the Cabo San Lucas trip — wearing a sombrero and riding a horse on the beach as he talks to his employees with a wireless microphone.
Papermaster was Agillion’s co-founder and CEO. Papermaster stepped down as CEO in November 2000 and was replaced by Jim Travers, who is listed as a defendant.
Moss — former president and chairman of Austin’s Tivoli Systems Inc. software company — was an Agillion co-founder and chairman of its advisory board.
Last August, Papermaster announced he formed and invested in an Austin-based software startup called CooperaTech Inc., where he is chairman.
(2) An authority signed by a debtor under this section is not effective for the purposes of this Part unless:
(a) if the person authorised is a registered trustee or solicitor–the person has consented in writing to exercise the powers given by the authority; and
(2AA) If the person authorised is a registered trustee or a solicitor, then, before the person consents to exercise the powers given by the authority, the person must give the debtor the information prescribed by the regulations.
(2B) An authority signed by a debtor under this section is not effective for the purposes of this Part if, at the time the authority is signed, the person authorised:
(b) is ineligible, under the regulations, to act as a controlling trustee under this Part.
(2C) If the person authorised is a registered trustee or solicitor, the authority signed by the debtor under this section is not effective for the purposes of this Part unless, before the person authorised consents to exercise the powers given by the authority, the debtor gives to the person authorised:
(3) An authority under this section that is effective for the purposes of this Part is not revocable by the debtor.
(4) Subject to subsection 192(1), a debtor cannot give an authority within 6 months of giving another authority, unless the Court grants leave to do so.
(5) A registered trustee or solicitor who consents to exercise the powers given by an authority must, within 2 business days of consenting, give a copy of:
Any questions about Bankruptcy Notices? Live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late, or alternatively complete the form below and we’ll reply to you promptly.
Watch our video tutorial, live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late.
(1) A debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the following cases: ….
… (ha) if the debtor gives the Official Receiver a debt agreement proposal;
(hb) if a debt agreement proposal given by the debtor to the Official Receiver is accepted by the debtor’s creditors;
(hc) if the debtor breaches a debt agreement;
(hd) if a debt agreement to which the debtor was a party (as a debtor) is terminated under section 185P, 185Q or 185QA;
(i) if he or she signs an authority under section 188;
(j) if a meeting of his or her creditors is called in pursuance of such an authority;
(k) if, without sufficient cause, he or she fails to attend a meeting of his or her creditors called in pursuance of such an authority;
(l) if, having been required by a special resolution of a meeting of his or her creditors so called to execute a personal insolvency agreement or to present a debtor’s petition, he or she fails, without sufficient cause:
(i) to comply with the requirements of this Act as to the execution of the agreement by him or her; or
(ii) to present a debtor’s petition within the time specified in the resolution;
as the case may be;
(m) if a personal insolvency agreement executed by him or her under Part X is:
(i) set aside by the Court; or
(ii) terminated;
(n) if a composition or scheme of arrangement accepted by the debtor’s creditors under Division 6 of Part IV is:
(i) set aside by the Court; or
(ii) terminated;
(o) if the debtor becomes insolvent as a result of one or more transfers of property in accordance with:
(i) a financial agreement (within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1975); or
(ii) a Part VIIIAB financial agreement (within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1975);
to which the debtor is a party.
(2) In calculating for the purposes of subparagraph (1)(d)(i) the period for which property has been held by the sheriff, any time between the date on which an interpleader summons in respect of the property is taken out and the date on which the proceedings on the summons are finally disposed of, settled or discontinued shall not be taken into account.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(g):
(a) where leave is given by a court to enforce an award made on a submission to arbitration, being an award under which money is payable by a debtor to another person:
(i) the award shall be deemed to be a final order obtained by that person against the debtor; and
(ii) the arbitration proceedings shall be deemed to be the proceeding in which that final order was obtained;
(b) a judgment or order that is enforceable as, or in the same manner as, a final judgment obtained in an action shall be deemed to be a final judgment so obtained and the proceedings in which, or in consequence of which, the judgment or order was obtained shall be deemed to be the action in which it was obtained;
(d) a person who is for the time being entitled to enforce a final judgment or final order for the payment of money shall be deemed to be a creditor who has obtained a final judgment or final order;
(e) a judgment or order for the payment of money made by the Court in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it by this Act shall be deemed to be a judgment or order the execution of which has not been stayed notwithstanding that it may not be enforceable at law by execution; and
(f) an order made after the commencement of this paragraph under the Family Law Act 1975 for the payment by a person of arrears of maintenance for another person shall be deemed to be a final order against the first‑mentioned person obtained by the other person.
(4) The act of bankruptcy specified in paragraph (1)(j) shall be deemed to be committed on the day on which the notices calling the meeting are delivered or sent to the creditors or, if they are not all delivered or sent on the one day, on the day on which the last of the notices is so delivered or sent.
(5) The act of bankruptcy specified in paragraph (1)(l) shall be deemed to be committed on the day after the day on which the period within which the agreement is required to be executed by the debtor or the period within which the petition is required to be presented, as the case may be, expires.
(6) The act of bankruptcy specified in paragraph (1)(m) shall be deemed to be committed on the day on which the agreement is set aside or terminated, as the case may be.
(7) The act of bankruptcy specified in paragraph (1)(n) shall be deemed to be committed on the day on which the composition or scheme of arrangement is set aside or terminated.
(7A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(o):
(a) transfer of property includes a payment of money; and
(b) a person who does something that results in another person becoming the owner of property that did not previously exist is taken to have transferred the property to the other person.
(8) This section applies, so far as it is capable of application, in relation to acts and things done or occurring, and omissions and failures to do acts or things occurring, before, or partly before and partly after, the commencement of this Act, as well as to acts and things done or occurring, and omissions and failures to do acts and things occurring, after the commencement of this Act.
Any questions about Bankruptcy Notices? Live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late, or alternatively complete the form below and we’ll reply to you promptly.
Watch our video tutorial, live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late.
welcome back to business asset protection, mark smith is my name. we’re up to part seven just of section 40 of the bankruptcy act, and there is we’re looking at acts of bankruptcy and there is heaps and heaps of these acts of bankruptcy and to be honest we could go for a week and and still probably not get through them all so today we’re just going to smash through the rest of them from section 40(1)(ha) all the way through to section 40(8) and there’s a lot to get through so strap on your seatbelt and here we go. well here we are section 40(1) of the bankruptcy act. a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the following cases …. now we’ve gone through a b c d e a double d a d e f g h and we’re now up to section HA if the debtor gives and look i’m sorry this will take we’ve got ages to go we’ve all got to go all the way down to h and i’m going to just skim through these and i apologize it is a skim if you’ve got any questions at all come to our website bottom right hand corner dcpartners.solutions and chat with us and what does part 2 of section 40 of the bankruptcy act what does section part 8 know mean? so by all means i understand it’s a scheme we’ll just go through these as quickly as we can and we’ll get through and any questions you’ll come come and talk to me offline we’re available anytime chat with us using the chat tools or call us on 1-300-327-123 now let’s have a look at section ha if a debtor gives the official receiver that’s a mob called afsa afsa.gov.ou a debt agreement so there are these are acts of bankruptcy and once you commit them you cannot go back from them, so very very important that you know that it is an act of bankruptcy and then you know that the what the consequences might be so a debt agreement now we’ll look at debt agreements later in our coverage of the bankruptcy act we’re only looking at what are acts of bankruptcy. so if you’ve got any questions about debt agreements or any of the other things that you come across coming through the rest of this particular video message me offline. hb if a debt agreement proposal is given by the debtor to the official receiver so again official receiver is afsa.gov.au this is out and it’s accepted by your creditors well that’s an act of bankruptcy as well so giving and then if you breach that hc if you breach that well another act of bankruptcy if and so these can you can see that these can accumulate so you might commit an act by giving the official receiver hi giving the official receiver debt agreement proposal but then if you breach it there’s another act of bankruptcy and so you can see that all of these ongoing acts a creditor if you don’t keep your end of the bargain hey credit i can use that against you in a creditor’s petition and we are going to have a look at creditors petitions that’s why we need to wrap this up if you hc if the debtor breaches a debt agreement well there you go that is a an act of bankruptcy hd if a debt agreement to which the party the debtor party was a party is terminated. so if you cease your obligations under that agreement another act. I – if he or she signs an authority under section 188 we’ll look at one section 188 now at the bottom of this particular blog or maybe it’s right at the very top of the of www.dcpartners.solutions of the particular blog that you might be looking at on on on this video you’ll see a link to section 188 so a tag a tag and so you can go and there’s a tag for date agreement there’s a tag for acts of bankruptcy so if you want to go back and see all the different extra bankruptcy use those tags aye did we look at that if he or she signs an authority under section 188 so what does that mean we’ll go to the tag above and look at the section 188 comments now at the moment there is no section 188 comments but they’re coming so this is a ongoing process. J if a meeting of his or her creditors is called in pursuance of such an authority. some of these things might make a bit more sense using the tags K if without sufficient cause he or she fails to attend a meeting of his or her creditors in pursuance of such an authority. so are you getting the gist that once you once you’re into this process of a formal process of insolvency, there are a number of potential acts of bankruptcy that can be used and no 99% of the acts of bankruptcy that are relied on in the courts is the failure under under a bankruptcy notice that’s s40(1)(g) – 99% we’ll just go back up to that 99% maybe 98% of the ones where someone does go bankrupt, happen when happened when you’ve issued a bankruptcy notice and a demand here … ralph plays $106,551 and they fail okay so 99 98 are of that kind. the other 2% percent as i said relate to some of these i guess more obscure methods of committing acts of bankruptcy and they are nevertheless acts of bankruptcy which the courts can use to issue what’s called a sequestration order. so that’s a new concept and there’s a tag above not on youtube but on our web page so go to our web page dcpartners.solutions and this particular blog has a tag for what a sequestration so there will be more and more of these posts and blogs and explanations about sequestration and other other things l where did we get to sorry did we get to k? L if having been required by a special resolution of meeting me of a meeting of his or her creditors to execute a personal insolvency agreement and then you fail. m if a personal insolvency agreement executed by you is set aside by court or if you if it’s terminated or it’s … well it it means that once you’re in you can go to the next there can be a further consequence okay. it’s bankruptcy don’t get me wrong it can provide a lot of protection and a lot of yeah i guess the protection is one way to look at it a relief it can offer relief to a to a debtor who accepts that they have unmanageable debts if you only go part way in and you do one of these part X agreements again up above look at the part X tag and if you want to look at more content if you go part way in it can accelerate you can go to there can be further acts of bankruptcy and that can have consequences. N if a composition or scheme of arrangements. scheme of arrangements we can’t possibly explain all of this one bit at a time but if you’ve got a question again use the tags call us 1300 327123 or instant chat with us using the tool in the bottom corner in if a composition or scheme of arrangement executed under division six of part four is set aside. all these different concepts. again these tags should help you. O if the debtor becomes insolvent as a result of one or more transfers under the family law act so if you’re again if you can’t pay your debts because you’ve gone through a divorce that can be an act of bankruptcy you’ve got to be very very very careful and it may not even be a divorce you you have a these financial binding agreements, so these are prenups these can get you into trouble as well. so an act of bankruptcy is you transfer out your your assets to your spouse. your wife your husband your whatever your companion. and these can have very serious consequences so much so that you could find your entire estate your entire estate is subject to a sequestration order possibly affecting your spouse. like the we we can’t look at all the powers right now but the powers are immense so let’s go on to now on to part two so this is section 40(2) … a person commits an act of bankruptcy oh no now these are not where you commit them but these explain a little bit further about the above acts so in calculating part two in calculating for the purposes of section 40(1)(d)(i) … the period of which that was where the sheriff turns up and attempts to sell your goods your channels and maybe your property these can be an act of bankruptcy so if you find you’re in one of these positions either someone owes you money or you owe someone else any money by all means instant chat with us using the tool or call us 1300-327123 section three well part 3 for the purposes of paragraph one g now that’s the one where someone issues a bankruptcy notice and gives you 21 days now it used to be 6 months during covid and you know there are a lot of ways that you can get around this all of these we we really can’t go through but there are ins and outs that’s what we will say ins and outs and a lot of complexity if you want us to explain it by all means give us a call 1300 327123
section 40(4) the the act of bankruptcy in paragraph 1j will be deemed to be committed now i’ll throw in a link to paragraph s40(1)(j) we’ve gone through that i think today i can’t remember all of these there are so many so look i think in wrapping up there is lots and lots and lots of complexity and again i think we probably best to say if you’re in in any position where the point is that there’s lots of risks in when you become insolvent or when you become under financial pressure there are lots and lots of risks and if you’re exposed to one of those risks and you attend a meeting you get a divorce there are many many risks and so probably the best thing to do if you if you think that you’re facing trouble give us a call 1-300-327-123 or use the chat tool bottom right hand corner www.dcpartners.solutions so we’re actually going to move on next probably here to bankruptcy notices and we’ll have a look at those and if you’ve got any questions by all means chat with us call us 1300 1-300-3273 or use the chat tools www.dcpartners.solutions …. thank you very much.
Leave a Reply – nothing defamatory will be permitted, all comments moderated. Spam will not be approved. Cancel reply
[…] Arun Kant […]
[…] Hill Capital has played a role in enabling alleged fraudster Steve Papermaster to raise millions of dollars …. adding…
[…] Dealing with debtors […]
[…] Dealing with debtors […]
[…] What creditor negotiations support can you offer? […]
(1) A debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the following cases: ….
(d) if:
(i) execution has been issued against him or her under process of a court and any of his or her property has, in consequence, either been sold by the sheriff or held by the sheriff for 21 days; or
(ii) execution has been issued against him or her under process of a court and has been returned unsatisfied;
(e) if, at a meeting of any of his or her creditors:
(i) he or she consents to present a debtor‘s petition under this Act and does not, within 7 days from the date on which he or she so consented, present the petition; or
(ii) he or she consents to sign an authority under section 188 and does not, within 7 days from the date on which he or she so consented, sign such an authority and inform the chair of the meeting, in writing, of the name of the person in whose favour the authority has been signed;
(f) if, at a meeting of any of his or her creditors, he or she admits that he or she is in insolvent circumstances and, having been requested by a resolution of the creditors to bring his or her affairs under the provisions of this Act, he or she does not, within 7 days from the date of the meeting, either:
(ii) sign an authority under section 188 and inform the chair of the meeting, in writing, of the name of the person in whose favour the authority has been signed;
Any questions about Bankruptcy Notices? Live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late, or alternatively complete the form below and we’ll reply to you promptly.
Watch our video tutorial, live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late.
Leave a Reply – nothing defamatory will be permitted, all comments moderated. Spam will not be approved. Cancel reply
[…] Arun Kant […]
[…] Hill Capital has played a role in enabling alleged fraudster Steve Papermaster to raise millions of dollars …. adding…
[…] Dealing with debtors […]
[…] Dealing with debtors […]
[…] What creditor negotiations support can you offer? […]
Transcript
hi mark smith, here welcome back to business asset protection, today we're having a further look at some other sections. now there are endless acts of bankruptcy maybe not endless but we're looking at a number of them so we're looking at today from about section 40(1)(d)-(h) of the bankruptcy act.
so sit back and enjoy. all right so let's have a look at the section 40(1) of the bankruptcy act. so a debtor commits
as act of bankruptcy in each of the following so we've looked at a b c we're well
we're now in d and we're going to look through to h we've already had a look at g and we'll touch
on that briefly when we get there so you commit an act of bankruptcy on every one of these occasions
all right so let's quickly go to section d
you commit an act of bankruptcy if that the sheriff turns up and tries to sell your stuff and it's either sold but it hasn't paid the debt so that's that's a section 40(1)(d). there's a pardon me so there's been a writ for possession of your goods and they're either sold or held by the by the sheriff for more than 21 days so this has come back unsatisfied that's that is the key they come back unsatisfied poor sheriffs this is fairly self-explanatory DAA. if the debtor's prison well if you present your own debtors petition you are bankrupt that's that's an act of well sorry that's an act of bankruptcy now even if it's not accepted it is itself an act of bankruptcy d.a if the if the debtor presents a declaration so there is a way you can present this declaration and we can have a look at that in section 54A if you have a meeting of your creditors and it's decided that even just having a meeting itself would be a well we'll have a look so this is section 40 in brackets one in brackets e if at a meeting of his or her creditors he or she commits a commits to presented as a petition so if you come out publicly and say well it's going to happen within seven days even if you don't well that's that's going to be an act of bankruptcy or he or she can sense to sign an authority under section 188 and we'll have a look at that a little bit later within seven days and if there's minutes kept and that sort of thing and there's a meeting chair and it's all in writing well and you know there's a vote of your creditors well so be it, that's an act of bankruptcy. F now we're not going to have a look at g but we are going to have a look at f if at a meeting of his or her creditors so this these are sort of sounding like you're talking formally about being insolvent they are themselves an act of bankruptcy so we've had a meeting of his or her creditors he or she admits that he or she is in is in insolvent circumstances and having it doesn't have to be the entire the entirety of your creditors we can have a look more closely at some of this case law or you've got any questions give us a call but if if you've been in one of these positions where you've had a meeting with your creditors or someone's been in that position with you where they've had a meeting of their creditors and you've you know said that you will pass a resolution well these are all factors that point very very heavily as acts of of acts of bankruptcy so g. g now we have had a look at this if a creditor obtains a final judgment so we don't get a judgment against ralph paligaru for $106,551 we serve him and he doesn't pay he had six months that's that is an act of bankruptcy there and then there can be some exceptions for instance where a notice was served in australia within a fixed time and the debtor does not does not comply with the requirements so the bankruptcy number said ralph you've got to pay $106,551 within 6 months so that's actually very generous it's now as it today today's the 19th of april 2021. the average creditor gets 21 days and after 21 days you have you have committed an act of bankruptcy. so so where the dead or does not comply with the requirements of the notice or satisfy the court that he or she has a counter claim so yes well it's not only that it's a counter claim set off or cross demand equal to or exceeding the amount of the judgment debt as the case may be THAT that he or she could not could not could not have set up in the action or proceedings in which the judgment was obtained so they had a counter claim and but they could not they couldn't set up this counter claim so this is a little bit different and look finally finally we'll have a look at now h. if he or she gives his or her creditors notice that he's about to suspend payments of his or her debts so we've got this situation with mr paligaru and where he's he's given not necessarily every one of his creditors but possibly i can think of i can think of a couple who's given notice and says well i'm not paying because i'm going bankrupt well there you go yeah you've committed an act of bankruptcy just then and there there are a few more of these, and we might have a look at that in a separate video this is obviously a technical space so what i do encourage people to do depending on their circumstances we've got health checks we've got questionnaires you can chat with us on our chat tools in the bottom right corner here of dcpartners.solutions we'd love you to be in contact with us you've got someone that owes you money or you owe them money we can help you on either side the debtors side or the creditor side we can give you advice on these pre-insolvency issues so it's it's really important what you say what you well you can see for yourself you attend a meeting and you pass resolutions you tell our creditors various things then we can talk through with you what some of your options are ,
so we'll have a look at some of the remaining acts of bankruptcy there are more there are even more and there's plenty of ways there's only 50 ways to leave your lover but i don't know if there's 50 ways that you can go bankrupt but we're going to keep looking and thank you very much for joining in. got any questions, chat with us bottom corner here www.dcpartners.solutions use the chat tool or give us a ring 1300-327123 or you can email me [email protected] thanks very much bye
Any questions about Bankruptcy Notices? Live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late, or alternatively complete the form below and we’ll reply to you promptly.
Watch our video tutorial, live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late.
Leave a Reply – nothing defamatory will be permitted, all comments moderated. Spam will not be approved. Cancel reply
[…] Arun Kant […]
[…] Hill Capital has played a role in enabling alleged fraudster Steve Papermaster to raise millions of dollars …. adding…
[…] Dealing with debtors […]
[…] Dealing with debtors […]
[…] What creditor negotiations support can you offer? […]
Transcript
well, welcome back to business asset protection where today we're having a look at the bankruptcy act. this is part four of our series today we're looking at section 40 (1) (C) and different ways that a person might try to defeat or delay his or her creditors so come join us okay well here we are in section 40 (1)(C) and we're looking at a a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the following: so they're all equal okay so if if someone gives you a bankruptcy notice for a hundred billion dollars and you don't pay it well that that is equal to one act of bankruptcy section 40(1)(C) a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy and each in each of the following cases we'll see as if with intent to defeat or delay his or her creditors well let's have a look at this very closely so if , if so that's the question if if with intent to defeat or delay his or her creditors okay so let's have a really close look at this that's section 40(1)(c) if we intend to delay to defeat to defeat which is final or to delay which just means it can only be temporary only has to be slight um his or her creditors in brackets one he or she departs or remains from australia so if you've departed um well that may be - that may be an event bankruptcy now it doesn't it doesn't automatically follow but there are some instances so you do you depart australia or you remain out of australia and and it comes down to - with intent to delay - or defeat his or her creditors. so again it's not automatic um two he or she departs from his or her dwelling or usual house OR place of business so we're gonna maybe actually have a quick look at some of this actual case law and we'll see what it says. 3 he or she otherwise have since himself or herself so that can be you know from australia it could be from you know bondi if that's where you um depart and you know you just go missing or number four if he or she begins or begins begins to keep house. again it doesn't have to be permanent but that in itself just the beginning to keep house can can if with intent to defeat or delay his or her creditors he or she departs or remains out of australia he or she departs from his or her her dwelling house or usual place of business or so he or she departs his or her dwelling OR usual place of business so in other words you do a runner. all right well i'm just going to refer a little bit to this book that i'm reading and i think it's really it's quite complex it's a little bit technical but i think if you'll allow me to just um refer to this book i think you'll get a little bit out of it um what is it what does it mean and what happens in these circumstances if one of these four tests is is present? that they departed or remain out of australia? departed from his or her home or usual place of business? as absenting himself or herself? or beginning to keep house that is to remain in one's house now this is what keeping house means it means to remain in one's house and refusing entry to others to serve a process so just that in itself could could easily be enough it's not guaranteed you've got the covid virus and you've been told to quarantine that that would be a perfect excuse? if you've got cold or flu-like symptoms that too might be a reason temporarily so to keep house the onus is on yes so the creditor the person that's trying to bankrupt um is has the owners to establish that the debtor's intent is to delay or defeat okay so um it does not necessarily have to be the soul intent if it's if it's like a collateral attempt intent that that may well be enough um this can be proved directly through the use of statements so um for instance ralph wants to come back he's choosing to be way you know these these inferences that you can be that can be drawn um use of statements by the debtor or indirectly or indirectly thanks john. um by inference by pro by proving the existence of circumstances which must necessarily cause delay. and which the detour must be presumed to have foreseen or intended to be to be or intended as a necessary result of what he or she was doing. so we could talk through some examples of this defeating or delaying a creditor need not be the debtor's sole intent in leaving australia or remaining out of australia. now these these cases were pre-covid. so again there's probably some argument to say well i'm remaining out of australia because it's impossible to get back or i'd have to do two weeks quarantine like there may be some this there's some grey here so um possibly so it need not be the need not be the sole intent as long as it's an intent it's not enough to simply show that the letters the debtor's conduct has caused delay it has to be intent intention of delaying or defeating. so it's it's a bit technical. i if you're if you're either one of in one of these two situations you're the debtor and you'd like you know to talk through some of the options, we've got a pre-insolvency um we've got a pre-insolvency division / work and we can do this same work for the creditor so we can talk through and give you some advice on pre-insolvency issues um with quite a bit of precision um these things can be can be uh the absence is they can be an ongoing event of uh bankruptcy so uh it need not uh it could have started ten years ago um if if a person's uh remaining out of australia because they know the moment they step back in the country uh something's gonna happen well that in itself may be an event so there can be an ongoing or uh there's a continuation um these are continuing acts of bankruptcy so we're going to look at some of the other bits um of the act uh gradually throughout the series um there's a time element um in in many of these so these can be an ongoing act uh and if you want to have a read of something case law i can make contact with me use our chat tools in dc partners dot solutions bottom right hand corner um of your screen uh there's a chat tool so join us there um yeah so there is some case law uh if you want some you know general advice um now if you've got someone that's in this position where uh you know they're keeping house uh they are absent from australia uh they're remaining outside of australia uh all these kinds of issues uh they've done a runner from their usual house um they're not telling you where they are they're not answering the phone they are answering the phone that they're not they won't tell you they want some of these uh actually. matthew taunton there you go um uh refused to give us uh this is a guy we're going to um mention and uh he's he's uh one of our villains. so you'll you will find out uh he's not there yet but uh he's going onto our blog i promise you i promise you he's going there so look uh these are some of the cases. um uh the technical as i said uh you want to talk through some of the different details give us a call 1300 327123 um if you're in one of these positions and uh you need money uh but you know maybe you've got a temporary problem well we might still be able to help you 1300-327123 uh we've got uh tax debt um type uh facilities um you know if you've got a tax problem um and maybe you're in that position where you've got the financial difficulty we we possibly can help you uh on either side of the fence uh the debtor site or the creditor site so give us a call 1-300-327-123 got any questions uh you can chat with us anytime uh www.dcpartners.solutions bottom right hand corner user check tools thanks very much
Any questions about Bankruptcy Notices? Live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late, or alternatively complete the form below and we’ll reply to you promptly.
Watch our video tutorial, live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late.
Leave a Reply – nothing defamatory will be permitted, all comments moderated. Spam will not be approved. Cancel reply
[…] Arun Kant […]
[…] Hill Capital has played a role in enabling alleged fraudster Steve Papermaster to raise millions of dollars …. adding…
[…] Dealing with debtors […]
[…] Dealing with debtors […]
[…] What creditor negotiations support can you offer? […]
Transcript
welcome back mark smith here from business asset protection we're a division of dc partners solutions uh we're having a look at s40 of the bankruptcy act. and we're actually into part 3.
so today we're looking at s40(1)(b) and we're looking at transactions that are voidable against your future bankruptcy trustee.
okay so here we are in s40 and we're going to be nice and familiar.
again if you're looking at these make sure you're looking at the most recently in force
version of the bankruptcy act 1966.
because it does change all the time. even if you google it you will probably come to the wrong version. so to get to that latest version, go to this series, you can just click on view series and view the latest. and we're going to administration proceedings there you go s40. so we're looking at section today well we're looking at s40(1)(b). so this is where a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy. in each of the following. so there's many many many of these and this particular one we're looking at today s40(1)(b). IF in australia or elsewhere he or she makes a conveyance. now we have a look at the definition of conveyance and i've got the definition up there for you to have another look at it's it's a way of disposing of or getting rid of makes a conveyance transfer settlement that may have a particular meaning. so we should we should look up a settlement, uh or other disposition. so that leaves it very open. it's another way of disposing of his or her property, or of any part. so you just get rid of the juices part. or a small part. or any part of his or her property. so it must be his or hers to begin with. and it's disposed of um in australia or elsewhere you can be a timbuktu.
you could be on the moon. it wouldn't matter where it was. so that's only that's only part one,
way number one. he or she creates a charge on his or her property. now here we go we looked at this in up. above we said that that wasn't necessarily to do with security? but here it's where he or she creates a charge on his or her property? and we should again, very technical. but what is what does the word charge mean? we should have a look at this and i'll try and pop that definition up over my shoulder. here so you can have a look. he or she makes a payment.
BROAD. or he or she incurs an obligation. so you go and borrow 100 million dollars when you know there's no possible way that you could uh service it. so you get you charge on your property. you make a payment. you give away 5 million bucks. and in circumstances where you can't pay your other bills. these would be um, sorry so, if in australia they do all these things, that would IF he or she became bankrupt, IF he or she became bankrupt would be void as against the trustees. so this now brings us into s120, s121 and s122. these voidable transactions. so it's it's a absolute pandora's box and just looking further at this word charge, i've done some research off-air. and it would appear to me that there's a very broad interpretation of the word charge. so it basically is going to be mortgage or indebtedness or liability. you could even think of it in terms of hocking. uh you're going to hock some piece of property uh. it could be big or small. it could be centrepoint tower. you could be you you'll hock your car um. you create a charge in circumstances that would IF you became bankrupt, be void against your trustee. so it's something that can be unraveled at at a later point? very broad. very very very broad. so we're going to have a look at um we haven't got into voidable transactions. there is, we're only at at s40(1)(b). so we've had a look at clause g. which is bankruptcy notices. uh we've had a look at clause (a). if you make a conveyance um for the benefit of your creditors generally. and also these are the ones that would be void uh as against your trustee. so there's a lot more to go through. and i hope you're getting the gist of just how broad these powers are? so if you're in the position where someone has served a bankruptcy notice on you? you think you're insolvent? you can't pay your bills? or you've got someone else who, you're a small business? and you've got someone that owes you money? and someone's making payments, incurring obligations, creating charges on their properties, conveying parts of their property, or all of their property? um it's, it would be really good to talk to you. um give us a call on 1300-327123. uh chat with us at the website, using the tools down in the bottom right hand corner of website. this one, bottom right hand corner uh on our webpage www.dcpartners.solutions - we've got an instant message tool .
there you can upload your documents. um as whether you're, you know you've been served a bankruptcy notice? or you've got someone who's indebted to you? and IF you're looking for someone that's very very skilled at this debt recovery stuff. so um come and have a talk to us. the first meeting's obligation free. won't cost you anything. and we'll tell you uh very clearly very quickly whether we can or we might be able to help you. we we may not be able to say yes, we definitely can help you but we can give you a clear indication of whether we think we might be able to help you. so happy easter.
today's the friday the 2nd of april 2021. this is probably going to air on the 3rd April 2021, um but we're available uh you know very long hours, money never sleeps so they say uh - 1300-327123. or use the instant message chat uh tool uh in the bottom right corner of our screen on www.dcpartners.solutions
so thanks for tuning in uh
next we're going to get into section 40(1)(c) of the Bankruptcy Act.
many many other exciting ways uh that you can um uh give the strong hint that you might have committed an act of bankruptcy
thanks very much. 1300-327123 or chat with us bottom right corner of our screen … www.dcpartners.solutions
Any questions about Bankruptcy Notices? Live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late, or alternatively complete the form below and we’ll reply to you promptly.
Watch our video tutorial, live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late.
Leave a Reply – nothing defamatory will be permitted, all comments moderated. Spam will not be approved. Cancel reply
[…] Arun Kant […]
[…] Hill Capital has played a role in enabling alleged fraudster Steve Papermaster to raise millions of dollars …. adding…
[…] Dealing with debtors […]
[…] Dealing with debtors […]
[…] What creditor negotiations support can you offer? […]
Transcript:
happy easter it's mark smith here from business asset protection, a division of dc partner solutions well we're continuing part two of our series, on … part two of our series on s40 of the bankruptcy act and uh it's only a small section but wow isn't it uh incredible? so we're gonna have a look now at s40(1)(a) and maybe we'll get to b as well? so sit back and enjoy okay well now we're looking at uh section 40(1)(a)
and we probably should have a look at b as well here because uh this is probably not going to take a huge amount of time but these are acts of bankruptcy which the court can take into consideration uh this is fit within uh the bankruptcy act acts of bankruptcy proceedings in connection with bankruptcy so uh when there are proceedings or if there are proceedings uh a court can take these things into consideration as proof of your bankruptcy um and let's probably we should just actually have a look at the word bankruptcy and just see what it actually means um so this is a little bit of interpretation max so let's have a quick look at the word bankruptcy bankrupt in relation to uh jurisdiction or proceedings means a jurisdiction or proceedings by virtue of this act. bankrupt means a person against whose estate a sequestration order has been made or who has become bankrupt by virtue of them presenting their own debtors petition so a bankrupt is a person whose estate is under administration basically so that's um that's a very key concept let's now have a look at … a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the following cases and there's quite a few here so we're not going to go through them all today but let's have a look at section 40(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966. and we'll see how we go so it's um in in australia or elsewhere. so you could be in fiji for instance and you make a conveyance in other words that means you transfer you give away you move you kind of value something so you convey or assign his or her property so that could be shares that could be it doesn't mean securing, giving away security so in other words mortgaging them it means conveying or partying with so losing control of and again this wouldn't be a um one where a security when a yeah where a secured party sells or conveys it's where his or her property is conveyed uh i think the assumption here is is conveyed by him or her for the benefit of his or her creditors generally so when a person's personal assets are conveyed or assigned uh for the benefit of his or her creditors generally uh well that would be indicative of your bankruptcy so um so there's clearly exceptions to this it suggests if it's for the benefit of his or her uh creditors well if you were to transfer your uh assets not for the benefit of his or her creditors but you transfer them or assign them nevertheless that might be captured under a different section but this is ones where you're disposing of your assets for the benefit of your creditors that's indicative and the court can take that into consideration and later on we're going to go and have a look at sections 120 to 122 these avoidable transactions so let's say you give away your assets but not for the benefit of your creditors let's say you gave the way to your children well we're going to have a look at really this next section we won't do it today in this particular video but it's where you give away your where you make a conveyance that would be void if he or she became bankrupt would be void so this is another way that there are many many ways so we'll just stick with that this is a very simple concept it's uh in australia or elsewhere so it doesn't matter if you go to china you go to russia you go to the other you go to the moon it could be elsewhere other than in australia or in australia. he or she makes a conveyance of or assignment. this is a technical area. if you want to talk about this uh with anyone uh if you've got assets well let's say you've got a creditor and they have conveyed or assigned their assets for the benefit of some other credit but not you? that still may be something you can do? so we can talk to you about that 1300-327123 or uh bottom corner on our website, use the instant chat tools on our website www.dcpartners.solutions
uh and you can chat with us uh about that particular situation you can certainly using the instant uh chat tools send us some documents. uh we've got forms down the bottom of this particular blog. there's a form that allows you to upload some documents. so if you're in that position where someone has conveyed or assigned their assets. uh for the benefit of some other creditor, other than you. um again there's exceptions, so secured creditors but if they give it away for unsecured creditors or maybe they uh you know try and hide their assets and give them to their children or something like that is an act of bankruptcy able to be unwound? very cool okay got any questions give us a call 1300-327123.
use the instant chat tools on our website www.dcpartners.solutions thank you very much
(1) A debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the following cases: ….
… (g) if a creditor who has obtained against the debtor a final judgment or final order, being a judgment or order the execution of which has not been stayed, has served on the debtor in Australia or, by leave of the Court, elsewhere, a bankruptcy notice under this Act and the debtor does not:
(i) where the notice was served in Australia–within the time fixed for compliance with the notice; or
(ii) where the notice was served elsewhere–within the time specified by the order giving leave to effect the service;
comply with the requirements of the notice or satisfy the Court that he or she has a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand equal to or exceeding the amount of the judgment debt or sum payable under the final order, as the case may be, being a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand that he or she could not have set up in the action or proceeding in which the judgment or order was obtained
Any questions about Bankruptcy Notices? Live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late, or alternatively complete the form below and we’ll reply to you promptly.
Watch our video tutorial, live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late.
Leave a Reply – nothing defamatory will be permitted, all comments moderated. Spam will not be approved.