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

 

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:

 

Correct as at 14 November 2019.

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

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

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

Fixtures

It might seem like a question with an obvious answer, but what is a fixture? What is a fitting?  And, what is equipment?

We are presently working on a project where our client is claiming title to commercial equipment.  The equipment was placed in a function space which features elsewhere in our blogs – current projects & past projects.  The land has recently been sold by the mortgagee in possession.

In the last couple of days these questions have arisen:

  • what is a fixture?
  • who can have title to it?
  • can a person abandone title to goods? and,
  • what is required to secure title to the fixture/s?

In this instance the equipment is commercial kitchen equipment.

Background

The purchaser from the mortgagee seems to be suggesting in correspondence that portable equipment is nevertheless a fixture.

The implied threat is to abandone the purchase from the mortgagee unless the secured lender, who owns the equipment, waives their title?

The answer to these questions is this. 

 

Analysis

Typically a fixture is a chattel which is annexed to land in such a way that it becomes ‘part of’ the land and ceases to be the personal property of the person who attached it.

Have a think about your workspace.  What are some chattels and what are fixtures and what might be fittings.

Take the kitchen sink for instance.  It’s probably quite impractical to remove that.  It would perhaps rip off the tiles in the process.  But what about for instance shelving.  Sure the shelves are screwed into the wall, and so it might be argued that they become part of the land.  But do they cease to be personal property?  And why were the shelves put there in the first instance?

These are all relevant questions in considering what are fixtures and what aren’t.  

We may discuss fixtures in further detail as this dispute is worked through.  

If you have any thoughts or comments or questions, please feel free to direct message me at:  mark@dcpartners.solutions – thank you.

14 August 2018