Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Equititrust?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
So the Tucker’s and Peldan’s are “SPECIAL FRIENDS” according to Jennifer Tucker...

Peldan appointed by Tucker and Kennedy as receiver of secret squirrel corporate vehicle MS Asia... Nothing to see here folks... Move along...
 
It seems the story pushed by some individuals that a group of Hong Kong investors bought the Bank of Scotland debt will soon be tested... Let’s see who really owns the shares of MS Asia :) :) :)
 
How much money did the investors of the Equititrust Premium Income Fund recoup after all the assets were sold ??? A big fat ZERO it seems...
 
Public Examinations have a curious way of snowballing and enveloping others in their wake...

The cunning and ruthless have a way of using others to conceal their nefarious deeds... Unfortunately they’re not immune to the law...


No Trust said:
Take Steps to Frustrate the Collection of Money
Justice Reeves could not have summed it better below.

To have an officer of the court state in an affidavit that they would declare bankruptcy in the event of a judgment and frustrate the collection of money as a reason not to examine him is mind boggling...

How on earth can the Legal Services Commission tolerate such recalcitrant behaviour ???

Justice Reeves to his credit put him in his place. There is no special law for Tucker FFS...

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.

Justice Reeves
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
Click to expand...
 
How can the Australian Public maintain trust in lawyers, the financial system and the insolvency profession if ASIC does not take action in circumstances such as this...

Expect a Publicity Campaign to shame ASIC into action on this matter...

Also how much tax was paid on this unholy scheme ???
 
Follow Anthony Marx on Twitter... He’s reporting on the unfolding scandal...

1C04F38E-0491-4FC2-B2DC-FE5B444C0EF4.jpeg
 
1EED9060-5A7F-4771-A8D7-6E0341301C12.jpeg Keep an “eye” on this list... Substantail sums invested by some...
 
Secondly, and in any event, I do not consider an examinee such as Mr Tucker can foreclose on the production of documents for the purposes of an examination under Part 5.9 by making assertions of this kind. As I observed about similar statements that Mr Tucker relied upon in the previous stage of this application: "If that were the position, the examination power under [that Part] would be significantly hindered, if not rendered totally nugatory" (see [2017] FCA 758 at [37]). For these reasons, I reject Mr Tucker's objections to the production of the documents described in this category. I will therefore order that Mr Tucker produce the documents described in items 1(kk), 1(ll) and 1(pp)above.

http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2017/2017fca1074
 
“The subject matter of the claims under investigation is highly sensitive. There are also issues of confidentiality and legal professional privilege. The claims are the subject of written opinions from two separate Senior Counsel. Those opinions, and substantial other evidence, were tendered to the Supreme Court of Queensland on the application for approval of the litigation funding agreement and the retainer of Russells. The proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland have, for those reasons, been sealed, by order of Justice Burns made on 1 December 2016.”


http://www.equititrust.com.au/Pdfs/...orts - 20170201 - Report to the Creditors.pdf



 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top