Posted on Leave a comment

Ralph Ignatius Paligaru – profile

ralph paligaru

Ralph Ignatius Paligaru (“Paligaru“) is the director of Dural Alliances Pty Ltd (in liquidation) and Mills Management (Fiji) Pte LtdRalph has charged his interest in these 2 companies and personally to DCP Litigation Holdings Pty Ltd (secured by duly perfected PPSR’s).

Dural Alliances Pty Ltd was a company set-up with Ralph’s former partner in the land and development proposed project at 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural (“the Dural land“), Craig Adams, former director of Bargo Developments Pty Ltd (in liquidation).

Ralph held a little know (possibly secret) interest in Craig’s Dural project via a written joint venture between themselves entered into secretly, without the knowledge of Mohan Kumar the former vendor of the Dural Land.

In furtherance of this joint venture, Ralph in August 2017 borrowed $540,000 from Franklin Yeezy Holdings Pty Ltd, which he supplied to his bestie Craig AdamsRalph was and still is (to our knowledge) the registered power of attorney of Mohan Kumar.

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:

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.

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:

Posted on Leave a comment

DCPLH v Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd – potential growers class action

Biteroit - Caernarvon Cherry

DCP Litigation Holdings is inviting expressions of interest from potential class action claimants against Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd ACN 111 047 191 (“Caernarvon“).

Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd is a fruit packing operator located at 474 Canobolas Rd, Orange NSW 2800 and predominantly packs Cherries and Apples under the Biteriot brand for Woolworths, Harris Farm and numerous export supermarket chains.

DCP Litigation Holdings is the assignee of the claims of a number of fruit growers from around the Nashdale, Mudgee and Orange / Mt. Canobolas fruit-growing regions.

What is a class action?

A class action is a permitted court action involving 7 or more claimants with substantially similar claims against the same defendant or defendant/s.

What’s the class action about?

We will be arguing, amongst other things, that:

  1. Caernarvon breached the Horticultural Code of Conduct which is a mandatory code within the fruit packing and wholesale sector ;
  2. Caernarvon provided misleading and deceptive fruit packing statistics and materially underpaid our assignees – causing loss ;
  3. In addition, Caernarvon overcharged our assignees for packing services, fruit picking services, packaging, transport, fruit handling, storage and /or otherwise.  In some cases, we have seen evidence where, Caernarvon charged our assignee grower up to almost 400 hours of labour in one summer season for the provision of a “person” / alleged staff member – this ‘person’ having no date of birth, no bank account, no tax file number, no superannuation membership, and no address … (the person actually is alleged to reside at the same address as Caernarvon, 474 Canobolas Rd – together with approximately 100 other alleged staff members) ;
  4. Moreover, Caernarvon at the time of the apparent overcharging of our grower assignee, also charged our grower assignee for the services of a “pay mistress”, Ms. Paula Neill formerly of Landseer St, RaglanAround the same time, Ms. Neill pleaded guilty to stealing the sum of $44,864.56 from a local charity known BINC ;
  5. Caernarvon failed to conduct its fruit growing operations in a workmanlike manner.

And in the process, Caernarvon caused our assignee loss and/or damage.

To be clear, we do not accuse Ms. Paula Neil of any criminal offence, however we do say that Caernarvon itself, with some 900 persons on its payroll did engage in misleading and deceptive conduct causing loss to our assignee, and we believe it is highly likely that a number of other fruit growers from the Orange and nearby locality also suffered loss (we have spoken to many).

Moreover, we say that the assignee is entitled to query the veracity of various expenses, which they have, and about which questions still remain outstanding (Caernarvon refusing or neglecting to account or answer questions).

DCP Litigation Holdings are inviting expressions of interest from other growers and suppliers to Caernarvon Cherry, to discuss the claims with potential class action fruit growers and claimants, who have had a similar detrimental financial experience with Caernarvon.  It will be our proposal to fund all litigation costs of all fruit growers accepted against Caernarvon and to share in any settlement payment or judgment of a relevant court.

How big does my claim have to be?

 
A class-action is ideally suited to large or small growers.
 
The size of the claim is not important.
 
The important aspects of the claim is that they are substantially similar to the what we say above that we will be arguing, i.e. they generally involve the supply of fruit from a grower to Caernarvon and some disagreement about entitlements to money (big or small).
 
The other important factor is that the defendant must be Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd of Orange, NSW.
 
 

How fruit growers can get involved?

 
Regardless of how big or small your claim may be, interested parties are asked to complete the below form to express interest.  Once we receive your enquiry we will email you also our class-action FAQ’s.
 
 

CCC class action

join
 
 
 
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.
 

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

Posted on Leave a comment

DCPLH v Swan – current projects (divorce funding)

Divorce-finance

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

DCPLH is currently engaged in litigation, as funder, of the settlement of a property dispute between a formerly married couple – the Swan’s (as at 2 June 2019).

DCPLH has developed a revolutionary service of divorce funding of litigation which it is currently trialling.  The same service may be applicable to wills and estate disputes.

To discuss divorce funding, 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.

Posted on Leave a comment

Craig Matthew Adams – former proprietor of Golden Arrow, Mikara Developments, Bargo Developments, Key Asset Management and more

craig adams

Craig Matthew Adams (“Craig”), who lists his occupation as “investor”, is a former company director.

Craig came to DCPLH’s attention related to several insolvent companies liquidated in mid to late 2018.  The group of companies includes:

  1. Golden Arrow International Pty Ltd
  2. Bargo Developments Pty Ltd
  3. Mikara Developments Pty Ltd
  4. Mikara Investments Pty Ltd
  5. Greenviews Castle Hill Pty Ltd

Craig is personally bankrupt.  A copy of the sequestration order is viewable here.

Craig was personally liable for a debt of $4m (plus interest) from Mohan KumarDCPLH is the assignee of Mohan Kumar for the fruit of that debt.  DCPLH is also the assignee of Reliance Leasing for a small debt owed by Craig and Bargo at the time of Craig’s bankruptcy.

Craig was made bankrupt on 13 December 2018 by a debt owed to Australasian Property Group Pte Ltd (“Australasian”).  Craig trustee in bankruptcy is Andy Scott of PWC.

Presently, Craig’s debt to Australasian is $2,059,753.46 (as at 31 May 2019).  Australasian are yet to recover the alleged debt (as at 31 May 2019) according to published documents.

Craig’s creditor’s report is available for inspection 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:

Posted on Leave a 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.

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:

Posted on Leave a comment

Hillary v Owners Corporation – strata acoustic issues

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

This project was not so much important in the content that it involved.  It was the analysis that it involved regarding a very simply set of works and the law’s requirements.

We bring, we think, a clear mind and thought processes to the task of solving your business, financial or legal problem – no matter how complex you think it may be?

 

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

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.

Posted on Leave a comment

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 Leave a comment

Welcome to Business Asset Protection

This post launches our blog series where we will discuss a range of topics which are perhaps important to those holding assets, their advisors, mortgage brokers and private lenders and others.

In the coming week/s this blog will discuss:

  • A range of relevant legal terms and their meaning/s.
  • Securities in Australian law such as the PPSA, common law and otherwise.
  • Insolvency – including personal and corporate insolvency.
  • some case studies.
  • various legal remedies, and
  • other related topics.

We welcome your feedback, or if you’d like to submit a question or comment – please complete the form below.

Mark Smith, Director   IMG_2744

Business Asset Protection

www.assetprotection.biz