Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Equititrust?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
Well, I think there is a bit more background to this than meets the eye. David Whyte alludes to this in his report and so does David Tucker in his affidavit's to the Supreme Court... McIvor made this demand on the directors prior to its collapse... They obviously did not pay it, much to the chagrin of McIvor... Watch this unravel and you will see that there is something suspect behind it...

McIvor won't get a cent of this money...

http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/...rds-tumbles-down/story-fn6ck2gb-1226174522609



ASICK said:
They may be of interest, but then they may not be of any effect:
"Under the rules, a transaction is assumed to be made for this purpose if at the time of the transfer, the super fund member was, or was about to become, insolvent. Any records that prove the member was solvent at the time of making contributions will help prevent those contributions from being clawed back."

and this rule only applies to contributions, and it's very narrow, "was, or was about to become, insolvent" at the time of the contribution, not the loan ($3.3m). Which contribution? Such contributions (if any) were probably made from Equititrust Limited (or other corporate entities), not the fund, and could have been made years ago - personal contributions could also have been made. It seems to me that the rule relates to issues probably being dealt with by the liquidators of Equititrust Limited - issues which seem to me to be most certainly beyond the purview of David Whyte.
Click to expand...
 
More Exposure To Come

It seems another media organisation is sniffing around the above mentioned questions... Should make for interesting reading...

Why is Stacey McIvor being sued by the Liquidator for money owing ??? How will this affect Stacey McIvor's Credit Rating??? David Tucker former best buddy of the dynamic duo doesn't seem shy in bankrupting McIvor's, is there another bankruptcy on the cards ???

A house divided against itself cannot stand............................
 
There is a lesson in this

A lawyer's dog, running around town unleashed, heads for a butcher shop and steals a roast.

The butcher goes to the lawyer's office and asks, "if a dog running unleashed steals a piece of meat from my store, do I have a right to demand payment for the meat from the dog's owner?"

The lawyer answers, "Absolutely."

"Then you owe me $8.50. Your dog was loose and stole a roast from me today."

The lawyer, without a word, writes the butcher a check for $8.50. The butcher, having a feeling of satisfaction, leaves.

Three days later, the butcher finds a bill from the lawyer:

$100 due for a consultation.
 
Marky Boy was well and truly outplayed by his lawyer... Hey he even bankrupted him...
 
No Trust said:
Well, I think there is a bit more background to this than meets the eye. David Whyte alludes to this in his report and so does David Tucker in his affidavit's to the Supreme Court... McIvor made this demand on the directors prior to its collapse... They obviously did not pay it, much to the chagrin of McIvor... Watch this unravel and you will see that there is something suspect behind it...

McIvor won't get a cent of this money...
Click to expand...

It seems to me that this is not an issue about claw back, but rather about the demand for repayment of an alleged loan. I think that if the debt is substantiated, then it'll have to be repaid ahead of EIF investors. We can agree to differ - time will reveal the facts and the result.
 
Re: There is a lesson in this

No Trust said:
A lawyer's dog, running around town unleashed, heads for a butcher shop and steals a roast.

The butcher goes to the lawyer's office and asks, "if a dog running unleashed steals a piece of meat from my store, do I have a right to demand payment for the meat from the dog's owner?"

The lawyer answers, "Absolutely."

"Then you owe me $8.50. Your dog was loose and stole a roast from me today."

The lawyer, without a word, writes the butcher a check for $8.50. The butcher, having a feeling of satisfaction, leaves.

Three days later, the butcher finds a bill from the lawyer:

$100 due for a consultation.
Click to expand...

Good one !!!!

A man was standing with a dog beside him at a bus stop.

A woman asks the man, "does your dog bite?"

The man answers "No"

The woman attempts to pat the dog - the dog bites her hand.

She says to the man "I thought you said your dog didn't bite?"

The man retorts "That's not my dog".

[if one wants the right answer, one has to ask the right question]
 
No Trust said:
Marky Boy was well and truly outplayed by his lawyer... Hey he even bankrupted him...
Click to expand...

and now, as a bankrupt, he has not a (financial) care in the world.

paradoxically, bankruptcy offers (financial) protection.
 
Re: Loser Again

Oh ASICK, this is all about egos and it did matter to McIvor in a very big way... Tucker was paid handsomely over the years and is still on the gravy train with the liquidator...


ASICK said:
No Trust, it seems to me that the lawyers are the losers - after all, they didn't get paid. The lawyers certainly won't get anything from a bankrupt. Not merely to take the opposite point of view, it seems to me that the outcome didn't really matter to McIvor.
Click to expand...
 
Yes but can't leave the country though... Wings are clipped

ASICK said:
and now, as a bankrupt, he has not a (financial) care in the world.

paradoxically, bankruptcy offers (financial) protection.
Click to expand...
 
The debt won't be substantiated... There is something on foot at the moment which will be revealed in proceedings...



ASICK said:
It seems to me that this is not an issue about claw back, but rather about the demand for repayment of an alleged loan. I think that if the debt is substantiated, then it'll have to be repaid ahead of EIF investors. We can agree to differ - time will reveal the facts and the result.
Click to expand...
 
Marky Boy strayed from his meditative past, what would his old spiritual guru say now...
 
Looks like Liquidator Hall Chadwick and All Bran need to come up with a good reason to get paid from the funds... Their promises to not claim against the funds will be thrown in their face if they attempt to take the matter to the Supreme Court...

Not so ballsy anymore are they...
 
Good to see the thread pushing past 345,000 views... This disaster that Mark McIvor created needs to remain in the public spotlight...
 
Litigation Against Mark and Stacey McIvor

I have posed this question before and maybe its one for McIvor's Bankruptcy Trustee to seek answers.. Who is paying for the solicitors representing the dynamic duo ???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top