The complaint was concerned by the Australian Property Institute with Andrew Saunders given the opportunity to defend himself, his conduct and otherwise.
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 about any person mentioned on this page – please use the instant chat tools – bottom right corner or the contact/tipoff form below:
revised in part on 15 and 16 December 2020 by Mark Smith
I met Ralph in late March 2017. Below are the personal opinions (unless stated otherwise) of Mark Smith.
Public interest
Ralph purports to have connections to people in high public offices in Fiji – Cabinet Ministers having, he claims, attended Marist College as a Schoolboy in Fiji where he has said that he formed childhood and longterm relationships with persons later coming to occupy, as I mentioned, high public offices in Fiji. It is believed that some of these connections include to persons within the Reserve Bank of Fiji, Fiji Hardwood Corporation and a number of Government Departments. It is believed therefore that some of the below profile may be of public interest to those trading with persons and dealing with government officials, in some instances, in Fiji as well as interest to foreign persons providing aid, trade or other support to Fiji. This profile may also be of interest to Australians – Australia contributes a substantial sum of aid to Fiji and naturally as a sovereign nation we have an interest in the good governance of the Country of Fiji – one of our closest neighbours together with an interest in efficient and proper utilisation of Australia’s Aid provided to Fiji. Regrettably, Fiji, it is reported, has a problem with corruption along with other countries within the region. We do not suggest Ralph is involved in public wrongdoing, just the developing nature of administration and governance in some parts of the still developing world. The below article may also be in the public interest of persons from or interested in India. The public interest of Australia may also be involved – Ralph and his former employer (discussed below, man named Mohan Kumar) lobbied and received Visa’s and other benefits, as a result of lobbying and other likely legitimate dealings, from officials and public office holders in Australia.
It is unclear whether any secured or unsecured creditors of Taiwan Timber Co, Fiji benefit from the lease arrangement – but we say that analysis of the tenant is in the interests of creditors, stakeholders including suppliers to Dreketi Timber Mill and generally in the public interest particularly in Fiji.
On or about 25 October 2015, Mohan Kumar (apparently bearing a fake passport in the name of Mohan Kumar) boarded a plane at Sydney and travelled to Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia. It is believed that Ralph Paligaru, on the same day, travelled from Sydney to Denpasar – but on a separate flight – Ralph has provided oral admissions to me to that effect that he did not travel with Mohan Kumar but he did travel to Bali on the same day as did Mohan Kumar – Ralph’s then employer.
It is believed that Ralph was employed at all material times by Mohan Kumar at or concerning 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural. It is believed Ralph’s title of employment was, officially Manager of Kumar’s Australian interests.
To the best of my knowledge, Ralph stayed in Bali for approximately 1 night before returning to Sydney, accordingly I do not believe that Ralph’s visit to Bali was for or turned out to be for a vacation?
The writer has no knowledge of the truth of these allegations but says he was informed upon meeting Ralph Paligaru in March 2017 that Ralph was aware of such allegations. The writer is aware of Ralph’s concerns, in writing to Dennis English, a former lawyer of Ralph’s of being “lynched“.
The writer understands that Mohan Kumar appeared to be of good character during his residence in Australia over the period of about 12 years from about 2003 (on and off) till October 2015 approximately.
The writer has seen correspondence held by Ralph Paligaru written to the local member of Mohan Kumar being Phillip Ruddock (a highly reputable MP) which states that Mohan Kumar is in effect a reputable business person making investments which are, or seem to be, legitimate in Australia in the MP’s electorate and elsewhere. A copy of the letter can be seen by clicking this link: Letter to Phillip Ruddock MP. I was provided with a copy of this letter by Ralph.
Ralph assigned the debt to my company seeking that my company would recover for Ralph’s benefit a referral fee.
In the interests of Mohan Kumar, it is unclear why Ralph didn’t simply negotiate a lower fee than that which was agreed on the sale of 632 Old Northern Rd from the selling agent, Brookes Partners?
Between April and May 2016, as Kumar’s POA, Paligaru was involved in negotiations for the sale of 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural being folio 1/228521 (“the land”) with Adams, director of the purchasing vehicle company, Bargo. A number of transactions were considered including a call option or vendor finance.
It is unknown why, if the JV was for the benefit of Mohan Kumar, the shareholding and other benefits provided for in the JV were not simply made in the name of Mohan Kumar (the POA did not expressly permit Ralph to confer benefits upon himself)?
On or about 2 May 2016, Kumar’s solicitor, DCE advised Paligaru strongly against vendor finance for any transaction with Bargo. Paligaru as POA for Kumar did not follow the advice. Copy of correspondence coming soon.
Between 9 and 10 May 2016, DCE and GV exchange correspondence. Copy of correspondence coming soon.
On 20 May 2016 at 1.51pm, DCE continued to advise Ralph, as Kumar’s solicitor, against vendor finance. Copy of correspondence coming soon.
On 25 May 2016 at 4.25pm, Paligaru receives a signed copy of the Bargo JV. Copy of correspondence coming soon.
At or about 23 to 25 May 2016, Paligaru received employment (or a contract of some kind) to commence upon settlement, on terms of approx. $5,000 per month directly from Brookes Partners, managing agents for Bargo (Bargo, replacing Mohan Kumar as outgoing vendor and lessor). Copy of correspondence coming soon. Ralph received a monthly payment from Brookes Partners from the rent that Bargo was entitled to from the tenant of 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural after completion.
On or about 31 May 2016, through Paligaru under the POA, Kumar entered a contract for sale of the land in the sum of $5.5m. Kumar received the sum of $1,500,000 at settlement and taking a vendor’s lien for the sum of $4,000,000 secured by an unregistered mortgage (but didn’t register a caveat initially), an executed blank share transfer for 100% of the shares in Bargo Developments Pty Ltd (“the purchaser”) as detailed in the contract (“Kumar’s interest”). The vendor’s lien was between the vendor and purchaser however the sum was guaranteed by the director of the purchaser (“guarantor”). Copy of extracts of these documents – click here to view.
Between May 2016 and March 2017, the terms of the $4,000,000 vendor’s lien were defaulted upon.
On or about 15 March 2017, Lisa Natoli (the Chief Financial Officer of the mortgage manager for Pacific8 including Kesinda and its predecessor, N&M, see below, corresponded with Andrew Kingston (“Kingston”), Managing Director of Winchester O’Rourke, a closely related party of the mortgage manager for Pacific8.
On 15 March 2017, Kingston wrote to Justin Hatfield (“Hatfield”), mortgage broker for the purchaser. Copy of correspondence coming soon.
During the day and the evening of 22 March 2017, Paligaru made a series of calls to me seeking increasingly urgent someone to discuss the Bargo defaults and directions (that evening, except he had to attend his son’s school function), in securing unpaid monies pursuant to the unpaid vendor lien.
On 23 March 2017 at or about 7.30am, I met with Paligaru at his residence at 88 Perfection Ave, Stanhope Gardens.
Paligaru informed me the POA he held for Mr. Kumar who resided in an Indian prison (and would do so, Ralph said, on a life sentence).
During the meeting I enquired of Paligaru a series of questions concerning the vendor’s lien, and his exercise of the POA as follows (words to the effect) …
Me: “Okay, you’ve entered into the sale of this land for $5.5m under this contract, how much money did you, Kumar, actually receive?”
Paligaru: “About $1.5m on settlement”.
Me: “Who signed the contract, you under the POA or Kumar?”.
Paligaru: “Me, under the POA”.
Me: “So where is the title deed?”.
Paligaru: “Um, we, I gave it to Craig Adams”.
Me: “So you held the title, but gave it to Adams?”.
Paligaru: “Yes”.
Me: “So you are saying you just gave Craig Adams the title deeds to a piece of land worth $5.5m and he went off and did whatever he liked with the property?”
Paligaru: “It wasn’t like that, he promised in the contract to pay it back with interest.”
Me: “But so far, has he kept his promises.”
Paligaru: “No, not exactly.”
Me: “Whose idea was the vendor finance?”.
Paligaru: “Craig Adams and I came up with it, more or less, together”.
Me: “But ultimately, who approved it, you or Kumar?”.
Paligaru: “Me, I have full authority under the POA to manage his affairs however I see fit”.
At 7.47am on Friday 23 March 2017, I searched the register of the land for records of any persons claiming an interest in the land. I discovered registered interests in the land by Bargo, N & M Investments/Properties Pty Limited (“N&M”) and POE. Copy of search document coming soon.
On or about Friday 23 March 2017, (at my instigation) a caveat was recorded upon the title to the land to protect his interest. The caveat was sworn by Paligaru under the POA for Kumar (the Smith Caveat). A copy of the caveat as registered can be viewed here – click link – coming soon.
At 9.36am on Monday 27 March 2017, once aware of the interest of N&M, I searched N&M’s particulars, to know where to correspondence with N&M. Copy of correspondence coming soon.
On Monday 27 March 2017 (at 12.23pm), at my instigation, I conducted a grantor search on Bargo / Adams to see whom he’d given PPSR’s to. Copy of correspondence coming soon.
At 1.24pm on Monday 27 March 2017, I contacted the second mortgagee, POE, to discuss breaches of the vendor lien terms. Copy of correspondence coming soon.
On or about Monday 27 March 2017 (the next business day), at my instigation, I wrote and delivered a “no-tacking letters” to the first mortgagee at that time only owed circa $2.675m and the second mortgagee whom I knew professionally. Copy of correspondence coming soon.
On or about 2pm on Tuesday 28 March 2017, I served the no-tacking letter upon N&M’s registered office via its company secretary, Anthony John Catalano. Copy of correspondence coming soon.
On Wednesday 29 March 2017 at 11.41pm, I wrote by email to Mr. Catalano (copied to Paligaru) the first mortgagee (and solicitors for the second mortgagee) about the default of Bargo pursuant to the $4m vendor’s lien. Copy of correspondence coming soon.
Between 11.41pm on Wednesday 29 March 2017 and 6.05am on 30 March 2017, unbeknownst to the writer, Catalano wrote to Kingston supplying my email to Catalano. Copy of correspondence coming soon.
Between 28 and 30 March 2017, N&M the prior mortgagee to Kesinda and its manager received actual notice of the prior interest of Kumar. We can provide upon request a true copy of the relevant title searches, emails and notices given to the prior mortgagee to Kesinda (“N&M”) and Kesinda’s manager, Pacific 8 and/or Winchester O’Rourke, in particular its Managing Director Andrew Kingston (“the mortgagee’s manager”). Through Paligaru and Mahony, Kumar conducted mediation with Pacific 8, Kesinda, Kingston and the writer. Copy of correspondence coming soon.
In furtherance of unknown purposes, Ralph in August 2017 borrowed $540,000 from Franklin Yeezy Holdings Pty Ltd, which he supplied for the benefit of Craig Adams – to refinance loans secured to multiple of Craig’s properties. Ralph was and still is (to our knowledge) the registered power of attorney of the former vendor, Mohan Kumar.
The writer observes that the Deed is dated 4 August 2017 but the caveat is only attested (it seems) by Ralph (and not Amreeta) on 27 November 2017?
As a general rule it is understood that the law is that:
“where equities are equal, the first in time prevails”.
The writer notes that four (4) months, from August 2017 to 6 December 2017 (if correct) was a sufficiently long time by which time the Paligaru’s interest in that land at Warriewood was, it seems, postponed.
Postponement means, in simple terms, instead of a person receiving secured money before X person, that person is postponed behind X person (another person receives payment first or in priority).
It is believed that the decision not to (for reasons unknown) lodge caveats in August 2017 (until 6 December 2017) and the subsequent postponement that follows meant that Australasian Property Group Pte Ltd – controlled by Ian Jordan and Maya was paid (I believe circa $540,000) in priority to the charge of the Paligarus.
The APG person loan document appears to be witnessed by Ian Jordan who purports to be a director of APG? It is believed that, as Ralph has connections with Fiji, so to does Australasian Property Group Pte Ltd? The writer understands that Ralph and Ian Jordan travelled together in or to Fiji on business and considered a number of potential transactions? It is believed that some money (legitimately) changed hands between Ralph and APG in regards to transactions?
By my reckoning, interest on $540,000 at 6% per months amounts to around $32,400 in the first month in default.
In month 2 the interest (calculated on principal plus default interest) compounds, if not paid, to around $34,000 PER MONTH.
It is difficult to fathom why a person (such as Ralph and Amreeta) might provide such generous, high risk support to another person they did not know well, e.g. Craig? That is – it is difficult to comprehend why the Paligaru’s would be prepared to borrow on high risk terms for this particular 3rd person?
The precise benefit (if any) available to the Paligaru’s for their guarantee and provision of security is not known?
On or about early January 2018, Kesinda took its interest in the land (on notice, through N&M and the mortgagees manager of Kumar’s prior interest, assigned to DCP Litigation Holdings Pty Ltd).
Between February and March 2018, Kesinda procured from Reliance a postponement of its interest in the land.
On 26 October 2018, I gave Paligaru and each of Kesinda and the parties in the Kesinda proceedings notice of the application for windup of Bargo pursuant to the assigned debts.
Each of Kumar, Paligaru, Dural Alliances and Amreeta stood by, not disputing the assignment (Kumar to DCP,Paligaru/Dural Alliances to DCP), whilst the Applicant as their assignee proved its debt and caused the winding up of Bargo pursuant to the Bargo debts.
In the early morning of 14 November 2018 I swore an affidavit of debt.
On 14 November 2018, the Supreme Court of Victoria order upon the Applicant’s windup application concerning Bargo.
In July 2019, Mahony appeared for Mohan Kumar in a mediation with Adam Tilley and Pacific8‘s related party Kesinda, as well as Australasian Property Group and others. Ralph attended the mediation as the personal legal representative of Mohan Kumar. The mediation resulted in Mohan Kumar being paid a substantial sum which I understand was applied to pay legal expenses and to, at least in part, pay to reduce the indebtedness of Ralph and Amreeta Paligaru to Franklin Yeezy.
It is believed that at the time the Taiwan Timber Company (Fiji) Limited owed HFC Bank under a mortgage together with an unknown number of creditors several million Fiji Dollars. The HFC Bank mortgage, we understand, is stamped to FJD$7,696,535.00 – surely a great sum for the shareholders of the HFC Bank if they are still carrying a debt of amount (it is believed that Taiwan Timber Company (Fiji) Limited is insolvent and in administration)?
We understand the director of Taiwan Timber Company (Fiji) Limited is a personal named: Mr Shin Ho Yu. The writer understands that under the triparte lease, Ralph’s company pays HFC Bank around FJD$85,000 per month? The writer is unaware if the timber mill has operated during the Covid period in mid to late 2020, the current status of the lease or the status of Ralph and his company’s relations with HFC Bank?
Alternatively, Ralph as director of the company Dural Alliances did not dispute the debt alleged to be owed to DCP Litigation Holdings. Under the same deed, if binding, Ralph may also have a liability to my company personally (noting he as director did not dispute that Dural Alliances owed the same alleged sum that led to the Dural Alliances company being wound up).
In or about February 2020, Adam Tilley’sPacific8 (the holder of an AFSL) loaned money under a 1st mortgage to Ralph and his wife. Adam Tilley’sPacific8 (the holder of an AFSL) also, purely by coincidence, loaned money to Craig’s company Bargo (who bought Dural from Kumar) in 2016, 2017 and 2018 under a series of differently named lenders before appointing agents and selling 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural under its mortgage/power of sale.
These loans may be a coincidence, the writer does not suggest any wrongdoing by Pacific8 (the holder of an AFSL)? A further coincidence is that Adam Tilley’sPacific8 (the holder of an AFSL) and Franklin Yeezy shared the same lawyer – Summer Lawyers a firm who do specialise and act for a large number of Sydney based private lenders.
The writer is only opining that “its a small world” and does not suggest any wrongdoing.
If the writer believes there is further detail adding to the profile of RalphPaligaru which come to light in the public interest to people, tax payers, business community, bankers, governments or others in Australia, Fiji, India and elsewhere, he reserves the right to publish appropriate materials.
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:
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.
“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?
Further to our class action potential claimants newsletter of late last week, we can now advise the following (also see our video) that, according to the attached title searches:
WCMBF Super Pty Ltd is bidder 23 from the auction held on 24 July 2019 in Orange.
The shareholders and members of WCMBF Super at Bernard and Fiona Hall.
Presuming WCMBF Super is the trustee of a super fund, it is assumed that its members are also Bernard and Fiona Hall who are in fact ‘trustees’ of funds within WCMBF.
As bidder 23, WCMBF bid the following sums:
Melrose orchard, 253 Nancarrow Lane – bid $2.1m
Brooklyn orchard, 135 Nancarrow Lane – bid $800,000
The identity of the purchaser, seemingly being a superfund, suggests the purchases were not intended to be debt financed – super funds find it difficult to borrow funds even mortgages.
The failure of Bernard Hall’s trustee company to purchase those properties, after some 115 days being available to them to raise finances, which it was contracted to purchase suggests things are not good in the Hall camp ….
With:
4 related companies in liquidation,
a litigation war between Bernard and his family,
the failure to complete 4 out of 5 contracts* (with a $740,000 deposit seemingly at risk),
with a litigant seeking a judgment in the sum of around $620,000 and
other unknown issues under the surface,
suppliers and customers of Bernard’s company Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd, perhaps justifiably, may well have concerns about whether Caernarvon really is a going concern and long-term partner?
More detailed analysis will follow re what the above means (or may mean) to proposed class action participants.
More detailed information on the Hall’s is available on our webpages:
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
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.
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
If you have any comments or information about Bernard & Fiona Hall, we’d love to hear from you including any documents using our instant chat, the below form or by phone on 1300-327123.
To contact us with any tip-offs, files or information – please use the instant chat tools or form below:
Caernarvon, much to the distress of Bernard’s former partner in Bonny Glen, Tim Hall, holds a supply agreement for apples to Woolworths, yet Tim had no financial interest in Caernarvon.
Caernarvon, was able, at least theoretically, to take a clip of Bonny Glen‘s (Tim & Bernard’s) apple sales to Woolworths without having to compensate Tim. Perhaps this was a source of angst between the brothers and led to the dissolution of their business partnership?
Caernarvon is labour hire company, marketer and packer of cherries. To the best knowledge of DCP, its assets include a Cherry Grader purchased in 2013, additional lanes added in 2014 and virtually nothing else (according to the PPSR register). As the packer and marketer of cherries, it is expected that it will be argued that Caernarvon is in effect a merchant within the terms of the Horticultural Code of Conduct (“the code”). As such, the code requires Caernarvon to have Horticultural Produce Agreements (“HPA”), in writing, with every fruit grower it deals with. DCP has spoken to multiple fruit growers and is yet to meet a single fruit grower that has received from Caernarvon a HPA which the code says is mandatory. This could be a problem for Caernarvon in the class-action if it proceeds.
It is unknown whether this company was the purchaser of the former Bonny Glen apple grader believed to have been sold by the liquidators (of Bonny Glen). A recent search of the PPSR register of Caernarvon does not reveal any PPSR charge on the apple grader.
Caernarvon’s bankers appear to be Westpac Bank who at least at present hold mortgages over a number of the Bonny Glen properties and have a security interest in Caernarvon‘s cherry grader.
Present known cases against Caernarvon Cherry
DCPLH is currently undertaking a statement of claim (as at 6 November 2019) in pursuit of an alleged debt owed by Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd to it, as assignee. DCPLH has filed this statement of claim in late September 2019 with a defence due by the defendants who have sought extra time to file on or before the end of November 2019.
To discuss this or any other Caernarvon matter – please complete the below form, call us 7 days till late on 1300-327123 or use one of the instant chat icons in the bottom corners of this page to chat with us now, 7 days till late.
* it is understood that the liquidators of Bonny Glen have issued a notice to complete on the purchase/s of land from the auctions of 24 July 2019 by close of business on 14 November 2019, time being of the essence. Unless Bernard completes the purchase of the Caernarvon’s Shed, it would appear that Caernarvon may not have a going concern business or may require to relocate to other non purpose built facilities?
For more information – chat with us live using our instant chat tools (bottom corners), book an appointment or call now on 1300-327123 (till late).
To contact us with any tip-offs, files or information – please use the instant chat tools or form below:
Bernard has thus far (as at 8 November 2019) only completed the purchase of Brooklyn with a further $7.35m outstanding to purchase the above excluding Brooklyn.
It is understood that a notice to complete has been served upon Bernard requiring him or his purchasing entities to complete the settlement of the 4 remaining properties by the close of business on 14 November 2019. The possible ramifications of failing to complete are discussed here.
If you have any comments or information about Bernard & Fiona Hall, we’d love to hear from you including any documents via the instant chats below, through the below form or by phone on 1300-327123.
For more information – chat with us live using our instant chat tools (bottom corners), book an appointment or call now on 1300-327123 (till late).
To contact us with any tip-offs, files or information – please use the instant chat tools or form below:
DCPLH is currently undertaking a statement of claim (as at 6 November 2019) in pursuit of an alleged debt owed by Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd to it, as assignee.
The claim seeks damages of upto $621,000 plus legal costs.
The matter is in the NSW District Court.
DCPLH has filed this statement of claim in late September 2019 with a defence due by the late November 2019.
You must be logged in to post a comment.