Equititrust?

[No Trust]

It appears that Richard Cowan decided to keep his cake hole shut given the gravity of the situation. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a partnership dispute in the near future.

 

[No Trust]

There are multiple pleadings by the liquidators under the Corporations Law for misuse of information as a director, breach of fiduciary duties and breach of trust which are the foundation of the litigation. Tucker is kidding himself if he thinks the claim is in tatters as its well and truly on foot.

The LPA pleadings by the Liquidator in my opinion are a sideline which were pleaded to have Tucker and Cowan address the issue of their firms involvement in the MS Asia deal as the funds flowed through the financial veins of the firm. If they flowed through its trust account then that’s an issue which needs probity by the appropriate authorities to determine if everything was above board.

Whichever way you look at it Stephen Russell representing the Liquidators has put the LPA issue into the public domain via the pleadings and whether its litigated as a sideline in the current proceedings nothing can prevent a regulator administering the LPA conducting a parallel audit or investigation to determine the facts.

Whether or not a breach of the LPA confers a right to sue, a contravention is a contravention and it can be investigated separately.

 

[No Trust]

Here is what Justice Bowskill says about fiduciary duties owed by Tucker and finds that no more is required in terms of pleading the existence of the duty itself.

Lawyers actually do have duties to their clients. You can’t play both sides and be a financial beneficiary as well. If all is above board, why conceal your ownership through a Hong Kong Company layered by another level of concealment through an offshore company in the Tax Haven - The British Virgin Islands.

Remember Tucker said he had no idea where the money went after it went on a holiday to Hong Kong

Maybe David Kennedy can illuminate the court after he is served with the Plaint.


Justice Bowskill

[77]
There is a broader objection taken by the applicants to the pleading of fiduciary duties owed by Mr Tucker, and breached by him, on the basis that the scope of the fiduciary duty(ies) owed by him will dependupon analysis of the contractual retainers, in terms of what the solicitor has undertaken, or is deemed to have undertaken, to do. It is said the material facts in support of, inter alia, the existence of the alleged duties have not been pleaded. The (remaining) fiduciary duties pleaded in [49] are a duty of confidence, relevantly, not to take private advantage for the solicitor or others of information acquired in the course of the solicitor’s retainer by the client; a duty to avoid a conflict between the solicitor’s personal interests and those of his client; and (or perhaps reflecting the other two) a duty of loyalty. Each of these are fundamental aspects of the fiduciary duty owed by a solicitor in any retainer of them by a client.[15] The subject matter over which these fiduciary obligations extend will depend upon the particular retainer(s); as will the determination of whether there has been a failure to discharge those obligations;[16] but the very nature of the solicitor-client relationship is what gives rise to the obligations the subject of the pleaded duties. Whilst it is accepted that the allegations of breach of the pleaded duties requires further attention, I do not accept that more is required in terms of the pleading of the existence of the duty itself.

 

[No Trust]

Anthony Marx
Courier Mail




Fighting allegations of breaching Trust Laws is something you never want associated with your law firm...

Cartoon of Tucker and Cowan priceless...

 

[No Trust]

Tucker is trying to fight the pleadings on legal technicalities which lawyers always do.

It’s clear to all that he meddled in his client’s business. On his own admission under oath he stated that he wanted to get back in the game and return the favour. I assume that was directed at McIvor for removing him as a director.

Tucker can spin it as much as he wants, however he can’t deny being involved in MS Asia.

If everything was above board and in compliance with the Legal Profession Act 2007 why the secrecy, why the concealment, why was his ownership buried in an offshore company domiciled in a tax haven.

The optics to any independent observer including investigative journalists do not look good. Hence the public interest and inquiry.

 

[No Trust]

Forgotten in all this drama are the innocent investors of the EPF who worked hard all their life and invested their money in Equititrust to have the funds fail to then get another drubbing as a result of the current claims before the Supreme Court.

Tucker doesn’t mention the money owed to these people anywhere.

Anthony Marx needs to be commended for shining a spotlight on the matter. He is ensuring the dudded investors are not forgotten.

They may not get all their money back but he is holding those alleged to have breached their duties to account by reporting on the case as it unfolds.

 

[No Trust]

Publications like Lawyerly know what’s going on...

 

[No Trust]

To me that appears to be a win for the liquidators... The bid for summary dismissal of the lawsuit was lost by Tucker and Cowan.

 

[No Trust]

I’m ever more curious as to why Tucker was made a consultant of Tucker and Cowan.

Are there partnership rumblings ?

I’m still bewildered as to why a law firm who was directly involved with Equititrust as its lawyers would then get involved in something like this leading to major litigation against them.

Not having the matter summarily dismissed is definitely a “stumbling block” for all concerned on the back of the initial reversal of fortune in having the Liquidator commence litigation last year.

Both Tucker and Cowan’s primary objective was to have the lawsuit summarily struck out in its entirety. They lost their bid to do this.

Now, if you fail in your primary objective, that can hardly be classified as a win, can it. Lawyerly seems to agree.

 

[No Trust]

If I was a partner in a law firm and a fellow partner said this on the record during a public examination I’d be concerned. If the firm then became mired in major litigation well I’d be questioning the purpose of the partnership.





http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...d/news-story/e2bd31e925e7456447b07cff430b29cf

 

[No Trust]

Where’s David Kennedy in all this drama ? Come David there’s a plaint with your name on it. a far cry from Colonel Kennedy’s ranting on this thread back in 2010. My we have come a long way in exposing the truth,

 

[No Trust]

The biggest fool in this whole saga is McIvor who was warned emphatically about his go to law firm Tucker & Cowan. Did he listen ? Of course not.
End result the guys he was doling work out to ended up bankrupting him.

It seems that in the end all of them are now getting the justice they well and truly deserve.

 

[No Trust]

The basics are the basics... Fundamentals never change...

If there are serious allegations regarding breaches of the Legal Profession Act 2007 then the liquidators need to make a formal complaint to the Legal Services Commission (if they haven’t already) regarding the role that Tucker & Cowan and people connected to the MS Asia transaction played.

This also includes firms like Worrells who are also entangled in the scandal. If they acted as a friendly “puppet” receiver whilst knowing Tucker was a beneficial owner of MS Asia and also acting as a so called “independent” lawyer for MS Asia, Worrells, David Kennedy and Equititrust at some point then regulators have to get involved and remove people from the insolvency profession if they breached the law in the most egregious way.

Equititrust investors have been “shafted”, it’s time to put a blow torch to the heels of the regulators to take action if there has been an identifiable breach of the law.

If a breach of the law is proved, then practicing certificates need to be cancelled and people removed from the profession for life, just as McIvor was. No exceptions.

 

[No Trust]

So Tucker is now a Sole Practitioner...

Was he pushed or did he jump ?

The mystery deepens...

 

[No Trust]

It appears that Tucker has hung his shingle at his home in the Gap...

Makes sense, as he’s representing himself before the Supreme Court.

Remember when McIvor resigned as a director of Equititrust, the firm he founded.

 

[No Trust]

The liquidators initial line of inquiry is starting to make sense now.

The intermingling of MS Asia with Tucker and Cowan, it’s partner David Tucker and friendly receiver Worrells is a web of intrigue. What’s the saying, a wicked web we weave when we set out to ..............



https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/QUD944/2016/3777218/event/29218304/document/1093243

 

[No Trust]

Given the current proceedings this will become very relevant.

Now it’s time to bring back David Kennedy to Australia and put him in the witness box. Maybe he will be able to enlighten the court as to the whereabouts of Tucker’s share of the profits.

Was tax paid in Australia ? Or did everyone forget ?

Memories will be jogged under oath.

 

[No Trust]

It appears that others are bitching and moaning about the MS Asia deal and I’m certain sooner or later someone will pay pay for it..

As the litigation rolls on so will the media attention. Never before has an Australian law firm been embroiled in a mess like this.

 

[No Trust]

Tucker in his response to the Courier Mail feebly attempts to spin a story in his favour, however his and Cowan’s primary objective as outlined in the judgment by Bowskill J. was for the matter to be summarily dismissed.

This did not occur and remains very much a live ticking time bomb for the defendants.

The liquidators have hit Tucker & Cowan, Kennedy, MS Asia and Tuckerloan Pty Ltd on multiple fronts.

This section of the judgement is an ominous peek into the future of the proceedings because as much as Tucker objected to the pleading, Justice Bowskill would not strike the matter out. For all intents and purposes, Tucker is and was the controlling mind of Tuckerloan.

Justice Bowskill addresses the alleged breach s 249 of the Legal Profession Act below.

Tucker is still on the hook and has a lot of explaining to do under oath through the course of the litigation.




https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/case-download/id/321500

 

[No Trust]

What is Cowan doing here ? Saying that Tucker was not authorised to do the acts he did within the context of their former partnership ?

•Tucker & Cowen’s liability for the wrongful conduct on the part of Mr Tucker under s 13 of the Partnership Act 1891

Justice Bowskill’s did accept the “Cowan” applicants submission that these paragraphs should be struck out. The Tucker and Cowan liability regarding the actions of Tucker is still a matter which will be litigated.