This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Equititrust?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new

"No Trust" the name David Clout is mentioned several times in Affidavit's of David Whyte that I was going through earlier today. I would need to revisit those documents to determine context, but it is appearing that there are well established relationships at play here. Wasn't David Clout the preferred receiver David Tucker was attempting to have appointed?
 
No need to fear it was a NSW Appointee, of the same name

http://www.aat.gov.au/AAT/media/AAT/StatutoryAppointments.pdf

 
You are absolutely correct...

Serious feeding frenzy...

 
Has the principle below been pissed up against the wall as far as Equititrust investors are concerned ?

This "SCANDAL" will precipitate charges being laid and legislative change in regard to the manner in which insolvency practitioners avoid conflict of interests and conduct insolvency appointments.

There is currently a team of investigative journalists working to bring this story to national prominence. Every move, every hearing is being meticulously documented and filed affidavits, exhibits extrapolated.

The Forgotten Principle
"Fiduciary. An individual in whom another has placed the utmost trust and confidence to manage and protect property or money. The relationship wherein one person has an obligation to act for another's benefit."
 
Dissipation of Assets
Given the fact that MS Asia is a Hong Kong based company, how much of the loot has been transferred offshore ???

I'm sure the liquidator will explore that avenue of investigation...

"Fiduciary" does mean you have to give it back...
 
From the feedback I have received today from various sources in both the media and business communities, its para's 44. and 45. below which have blown people away.

The temerity to make such a statement in a sworn affidavit blew people away as it did Justice reeves below...

36 Given the breadth of the general ambit of an examination under Part 5.9, I see no reason why these observations do not apply equally to Mr Tucker’s examination to allow his examination to extend to include the identification of his ability to satisfy any judgment that may be obtained against him. Indeed, in his submissions on this issue, Mr Tucker seemed to accept this was so because he claimed that, in any event, he did not have any financial interest in any of the companies or trusts listed in the orders of Deputy Registrar Lynch. Furthermore, in one of his affidavits filed in support of his application, he stated:

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.

37 Whether or not Mr Tucker is correct in these claims and asserted intentions are matters that the Liquidators will undoubtedly investigate during his examination and, depending on the answers he gives, will weigh up in deciding whether to pursue any proceeding against him. However, I do not consider these statements can be used to prevent the Liquidators examining him with respect to his ability to meet a judgment in the contemplated proceeding. To do so would be to accede to the startling proposition that an examinee under Part 5.9 could foreclose on this area of examination under that Part by making claims in an application of this kind that the Liquidators will gain nothing by pursuing that area or, if they do succeed to a judgment, that he or she will take steps to frustrate the collection of any monies under that judgment. If that were the position, the examination power under Part 5.9 would be significantly hindered, if not rendered totally nugatory.


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

Please answer this question on behalf on the EIF Investor's.

Did any transaction with either David Tucker or David Kennedy, be it by way of priority position ceded to the EPF or otherwise result in a diminished return to the EIF investors ?

 
David Whyte

Did you know Tucker and Kennedy had a beneficial interest in MS ASIA whilst giving them work on behalf of the EIF ?

ASIC needs to commence an investigation, as I'm sure all concerned will now go underground whilst the lawyers are hovering and knocking on the door.

Given the liquidator's gathered information to date, maybe they can guide ASIC and force Whyte and BDO to give an honest answer to the investor's of the EPF.


 

"No Trust" I would suggest ASIC are watching closely. However, they may have formed a "wait and see" approach to assess how much more evidence is likely to come out through the examinable affairs. What are your thoughts?
 
I agree totally...

I will say though, ASIC are definitely involved now...

I think all the protagonists are aware of that and are now in panic mode. They will have to reveal all sooner or later.

If the interests of the investor's in the EPF and the EIF were compromised and the insolvency practitioners / firms were complicit / negligent, I suggest that new litigation fronts will open up soon, if they haven't already...
The indemnity insurance will be attacked in a similar manner that Amanda Banton attacked Equititrust's insurance.

Tucker even alludes to it himself in his affidavit:

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.


SpatialG said:
"No Trust" I would suggest ASIC are watching closely. However, they may have formed a "wait and see" approach to assess how much more evidence is likely to come out through the examinable affairs. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Practical Guidance So far the “practical guidance” arising from these cases is somewhat limited, however, the cases give us more guidance than that. It is clear that a practitioner who starts a deliberate path of deception can get off the escalator at any point.

The longer you leave it, the higher the fall.
QLD LAW SOCIETY - ETHICS CENTRE

SpatialG said:
What are your thoughts "No Trust" as to why ASIC should get involved? Are you thinking administrative, civil or criminal?
Click to expand...
 
Given Worrells involvement and Public Examination of Michael Peldan by the Liquidator, I am certain the strategy will be to join Peldan and Worrells in any claim against Tucker and Kennedy. The indemnity insurance of the firm will at stake, given the quantum of the claim...
 
Background

Equititrust was incorporated on 18 August 1993 and was placed into voluntary administration on 15 February 2012. The creditors of Equititrust resolved that the company should be placed into liquidation on 20 April 2012.

Equititrust held an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL) and was the responsible entity of two registered schemes, the Equititrust Income Fund (EIF) and the Equititrust Priority Class Income Fund (EPCIF). It was also trustee of an unregistered managed investment scheme, called the Equititrust Premium Fund (EPF).

The voluntary administrators of Equititrust reported that as at the date of their appointment:

  • EIF had about 1620 unitholders who were owed approximately $203.6 mil.
  • EPF had about 38 unitholders who were owed approximately $56.7 mil; and
  • EPCIF had 5 unitholders and held no tangible assets.
Mr McIvor was made bankrupt on 28 November 2012.

http://asic.gov.au/about-asic/media...asic-permanently-bans-former-equititrust-ceo/
 
McIvor is in the ASIC Hall of Fame... Others will soon follow...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...