Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Equititrust?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
Mozzi, very true... Apart from the fact that Tucker and Kennedy deserve everything they get, the receivership with Whyte and the liquidation with Pleash et al, are being run along factional lines. Tucker on one hand and McIvor on the other.

Tucker is friendly with Whyte and McIvor is friendly with both the liquidator and the firm Russell's who have employed McIvor's lawyer Ashley Tiplady from Nyst Lawyers on the Gokd Coast. (A firm McIvor didn't pay in the end).

Insolvency firms / practitioners do what's in their interest first and make as much money as they can, all sanctioned by the court. Only in extreme cases are they ever brought to account.

In this instance Tucker has lost his so called moral ground by doing excavtly what he accused McIvor of doing.

What's worse was the concealment from the investors and the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Worrells were complicit and morally reprehensible for taking part in such a scam.

All will be exposed when formal proceedings are commenced.

Other agencies / authorities will also commence proceedings in the not too distant future I am reliably informed.

Mozzi said:
We were being somewhat sarcastic No Trust.

We know that wherever our money is being spent, and by whom, it is OUR MONEY that we will never see again!
Click to expand...
 
Tucker Finance Pty Ltd was incorporated on 16/05/2012 as a Proprietary other at Registrar of Companies.
 
What on earth were the rest of the partners in the firm thinking ??? Did they think this was a good idea ??? Did they think this would pass the smell test ???
 
No Trust said:
Mozzi, very true... Apart from the fact that Tucker and Kennedy deserve everything they get, the receivership with Whyte and the liquidation with Pleash et al, are being run along factional lines. Tucker on one hand and McIvor on the other.

Tucker is friendly with Whyte and McIvor is friendly with both the liquidator and the firm Russell's who have employed McIvor's lawyer Ashley Tiplady from Nyst Lawyers on the Gokd Coast. (A firm McIvor didn't pay in the end).

Insolvency firms / practitioners do what's in their interest first and make as much money as they can, all sanctioned by the court. Only in extreme cases are they ever brought to account.

In this instance Tucker has lost his so called moral ground by doing excavtly what he accused McIvor of doing.

What's worse was the concealment from the investors and the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Worrells were complicit and morally reprehensible for taking part in such a scam.

All will be exposed when formal proceedings are commenced.

Other agencies / authorities will also commence proceedings in the not too distant future I am reliably informed.
Click to expand...
Quick question "No Trust" regarding factional lines, I recall a post at #4129 where you suggested MS Asia as possibly meaning Mark & Stacey Asia. Was this inferring a closeness of relationship between Tucker and McIvor?
 
Hi SpatialG
Welcome to the Thread.
I was suggesting that the parties who formed the company i.e. Tucker and Kennedy chose interesting letters as the name of their company... Coincidence ? Me thinks not... Maybe a subtle poke on their behalf...

SpatialG said:
Quick question "No Trust" regarding factional lines, I recall a post at #4129 where you suggested MS Asia as possibly meaning Mark & Stacey Asia. Was this inferring a closeness of relationship between Tucker and McIvor?
Click to expand...
 
Nice little fee earner that... Telephone ping pong is a way insolvency practitioners and lawyers pay for nice little ski trips to Japan ...


SpatialG said:
The faction between Tucker and Whyte is fairly strong. Do a search on "Tucker" in the affidavit of David Whyte dated 19 September 2012 and see how many times the two communicated. See http://equititrust.com.au/Pdfs/Receiver/Remuneration/Affidavit of David Whyte sworn 19 September 2012 - Application for Remuneration (Volume 2 of 3).pdf
Click to expand...
 
It's time the "examinee" "Tucker" is put into the witness box... Something I'm sure he's dreading...
 
Breach of Trust said:
Just read this judgement interesting .

http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2017/2017fca0758
Click to expand...
"Breach of Trust" - that is an insightful read. I note with interest the following statements from one of "Tucker's" affidavits;
44. If the liquidators sue me, and I suffer a judgment against me in the sums alleged by the liquidators’ solicitors, or indeed a fraction of those amounts, and it is not covered by insurance, I would not seek to have recourse to the assets of the trusts or superannuation fund described above, but rather I would file for bankruptcy.

45. Nor could I seek to have recourse to the assets of my superannuation fund as the preservation age is 60, and I am currently aged 49, so I cannot draw funds from it for about 11 years.

One can only begin to imagine where "Tucker's" mind is right now - particularly when these statements are combined with entry #4184 above regarding him no longer being a partner of Tucker & Cowen.

A question that must now be asked is whether he EVER had the best interests of 1620 investor's at heart even when he was on the board?
 
You make a good point SpatialG as to (where Tucker's mind is right now)...

Professional Indemnity Insurance
There could be "serious ramifications" concerning Tucker and Cowan's Professional Indemnity Insurance as a firm and Tucker's personal indemnity insurance as a director of Equititrust, given the current proceedings on foot and foreshadowed proceedings likely to be commenced in the near future.

Tucker and Cowan
Has Tucker been benched as a partner of Tucker and Cowan for a reason ?

Is there disharmony amongst the partners of the firm ?

Did the other partners of the firm benefit financially from the Bank of Scotland "transaction"?

If they did shouldn't they be examined as well ?

If they didn't shouldn't they be distancing themselves from this scandal and its protagonists ?

The public spotlight on this scandal is going to become searing over the next few months whilst Tucker is examined and when the trial commences.

http://www.qls.com.au/For_the_profe...mes_services/Professional_Indemnity_Insurance

"Every law practice in Queensland must hold professional indemnity insurance."

http://www.qls.com.au/Becoming_a_me...ional_benefits/Limitation_of_Liability_Scheme

Exclusions
There are a few exclusions to which the Scheme does not apply, being:
  • ILP’s as corporate entities
  • Personal injury claims
  • Fraud, dishonesty, breach of trust
  • Part 9, division 2, subdivision C of the Land Title Act 1994 (claims under the Queensland State Government Fidelity Fund for title fraud)

In Para 44 Tucker himself refers to the issue of insurance:

44. If the liquidators sue me, and I suffer a judgment against me in the sums alleged by the liquidators’ solicitors, or indeed a fraction of those amounts, and it is not covered by insurance, I would not seek to have recourse to the assets of the trusts or superannuation fund described above, but rather I would file for bankruptcy.

http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2017/2017fca0758

As I mentioned in this thread many years ago (when Equititrust started to implode and a class action was mooted by Piper Alderman, McIvor's Financial Position became precarious), banks and financiers start to circle like proverbial sharks when they smell blood in the water.


SpatialG said:
"Breach of Trust" - that is an insightful read. I note with interest the following statements from one of "Tucker's" affidavits;
44. If the liquidators sue me, and I suffer a judgment against me in the sums alleged by the liquidators’ solicitors, or indeed a fraction of those amounts, and it is not covered by insurance, I would not seek to have recourse to the assets of the trusts or superannuation fund described above, but rather I would file for bankruptcy.

45. Nor could I seek to have recourse to the assets of my superannuation fund as the preservation age is 60, and I am currently aged 49, so I cannot draw funds from it for about 11 years.

One can only begin to imagine where "Tucker's" mind is right now - particularly when these statements are combined with entry #4184 above regarding him no longer being a partner of Tucker & Cowen.

A question that must now be asked is whether he EVER had the best interests of 1620 investor's at heart even when he was on the board?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top