Bankruptcy

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
Personal insolvencies hit their lowest level since 1990 in the December 2019 quarter, and were again some -16.5 per cent lower year-on-year in the March 2020 quarter.
<img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sxieSq_ZTC4/Xun2fAevMFI/AAAAAAAA2ZI/Ml-BL6k_1nM57rxesOG0ZtKB6hj74PUMACNcBGAsYHQ/s640/A1.jpg" width="640" height="370" data-original-height="801" data-original-width="1379">
 
This is all the more remarkable when you consider the stats on a per capita rolling annual basis, where they appeared to be racing towards zero in the March quarter.
<img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bxLLz7PwC1Y/Xun3Bey1VFI/AAAAAAAA2ZU/r2Y9lNeAZCAVu2SZELwfoUeIhvH7Va3JQCNcBGAsYHQ/s640/A3.jpg" width="640" height="376" data-original-height="805" data-original-width="1366">
Part IV and XI bankruptices were also some 16 per cent lower year-on-year.
<img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2itXxsBidoQ/Xun2fN0rv6I/AAAAAAAA2ZE/wNgH8--8tKoMG-qaG4ABsusYNNmGT-yWwCNcBGAsYHQ/s640/A2.jpg" width="640" height="380" data-original-height="803" data-original-width="1348">
ASIC's insolvency figures all showed a sharp drop in insolvencies in April, presumably partly related to the government's stimulus measures.
Construction insolvencies also fell to a series low in the March 2020 quarter, thanks to low interest rates perhaps.
 <img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HqPTq923vAY/Xun4AUD8h8I/AAAAAAAA2Zg/up6jQvL6pAAklQRSWSF8KXd5QO1uUOAQQCNcBGAsYHQ/s640/ASIC.jpg" width="640" height="378" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1353">
Let's see what September brings, and whether or not there is a financial 'cliff' (not if the government is smart about things).
</body></html>

pwargent-M4siyDbqQY

Personal insolvencies remain at their lowest levels in 30 years: Pete Wargent

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The coronavirus pandemic has wreaked havoc on the Australian economy, and the financial effects for many are deeply personal.
Sadly, there’s no shortage of terrible advice online when it comes to personal finance. And as September 30 looms - the date by which JobKeeper, the increased JobSeeker and many negotiated rent and mortgage deferrals end - it’s important to be fully informed before you make potentially life-changing financial decisions.
As a former financial counsellor and former consumer credit educator for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), here’s what I think you need to know if you’re considering mortgage deferral, rent relief or bankruptcy.
Mortgage deferral
Residential mortgages are covered by <a href="https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/find-a-document/regulatory-guides/rg-209-credit-licensing-responsible-lending-conduct/" target="_blank">federal legislation</a>, under which lenders can assist when borrowers can’t afford their usual repayments due to changed circumstances — such as losing hours or employment.
For example, you can ask your lender put on hold payments from June to September. It’s up to you and the creditor to establish clearly what happens to those payments. Are they pushed to the end of the contract, thereby extending the life of your loan? Or will you repay extra when you can afford repayments again?
Make sure you understand how much more it will cost you in additional interest if you extend the life of your loan by deferring these payments to the end of the contract. Depending on the details of your loan, you could be adding thousands of dollars to the amount you need to repay.
Most mortgage lenders don’t really want to repossess your house. It’s costly, time-consuming and stressful. But before asking for mortgage relief, you need to have a plan for the post-deferral period.
What happens if you still can’t make your usual repayments? Any licensed financial professional should be able to help negotiate a deferral on your mortgage or other consumer debts such as credit cards, but you should first consider seeing a free financial counsellor who is independent of any lenders. They can be contacted on 1800 007 007 or through the <a href="https://ndh.org.au/" target="_blank">National Debt Helpline</a>.
Rent relief
If you can’t pay your rent due to changed circumstances, you can ask your landlord to reduce or defer your rent. They can, of course, say no.
Unlike mortgage deferral, the implementation and process is inconsistent across states and territories. It can be difficult to navigate.
There are <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/regulator-to-crack-down-on-real-estate-agents-pressuring-tenants-to-use-super" target="_blank">reports</a> of some landlords asking for comprehensive financial statements to support claims, or for their tenants to access the early release of up to <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/super/withdrawing-and-using-your-super/Early-access-to-your-super/#Compassionategrounds" target="_blank">A$10,000 in superannuation</a> to pay the rent.
Ausralia’s corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), has <a href="https://download.asic.gov.au/media/5546344/asic-letter-response-to-early-release-of-super-state-rei-3-april-2020.pdf" target="_blank">warned real estate agents</a> that advising tenants to take money from their superannuation may constitute giving unlicensed financial advice and/or be against people’s best interests, attracting possible fines and jail time.
If you’re talking with your landlord about rent relief, be clear on whether you’re talking about rent payments being reduced, deferred or permanently waived, and whether these payments would need to be made up by a certain date. Renters can seek help from <a href="https://ndh.org.au/" target="_blank">free financial counsellors</a> or a <a href="https://www.tenants.org.au/covid19/guide" target="_blank">tenants’ union</a>.
State and territory governments have established various schemes to help renters work out agreements with their landlord (see this <a href="https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/consumer-protection/covid-19-residential-tenancies-mandatory-conciliation-service" target="_blank">Western Australian</a> scheme as an example).
Bankruptcy
Bankruptcy should be a last resort. Many creditors have shown they’re willing to provide short-term delays (for about 90 days, for example) if people need more time to pay a debt.
Consumer credit contracts are written on the basis that life has its ups and downs and if a debtor genuinely can’t pay, the creditor can help by reducing payments, stopping interest charges, deferring payments and/or restructuring loans.
In almost all consumer bankruptcies, there is no return to creditors so they generally don’t want debtors to go bankrupt. It’s in their interest to help debtors through a difficult period so they can return to making payments.
Of great concern to consumer advocates is that searching “bankruptcy” or “help with debts” on the internet will often generate results for companies with a vested interest in placing you in what’s called a “debt agreement”. These should be approached with caution. It basically means you pay for a company to help you declare bankruptcy - but this is unnecessary.
A debt agreement is an act of bankruptcy that directs fees to those companies and quite often places consumers in unmanageable and unsustainable long-term repayment plans.
Instead, try to find free financial counsellors, some of whom work for charities. They are professional, unbiased and expert at informing people of their options when in debt. They can be found via the government’s <a href="https://moneysmart.gov.au/managing-debt/financial-counselling" target="_blank">MoneySmart</a> site.
If you can’t pay your debts, there are many <a href="https://www.afsa.gov.au/debtrelief" target="_blank">options available</a>. The key is contacting the right person or organisation - and knowing whatever comes up first in a Google search is not necessarily the best or most impartial place to get help in a financial crisis.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/141274/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gregory-mowle-296811" target="_blank">Gregory Mowle</a>, Lecturer in Finance, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-canberra-865" target="_blank">University of Canberra</a>
This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/mortgage-deferral-rent-relief-and-bankruptcy-what-you-need-to-know-if-you-have-coronavirus-money-problems-141274" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

What do you need to know if you have coronavirus money problems?

<html><body>
Between 9 and 22 March, 887 people entered into a new personal insolvency in Australia, according to AFSA, the Australian governmental financial authority.
Where they could identify the industry, the most common industry was health care and social assistance. Over this period, 230 of these people were involved in a business.
Construction was the most common industry where people who entered into new personal insolvencies were involved in a business.
The number of people who entered into a new personal insolvency increased from 830 between 24 February and 8 March 2020 to 887 people between 9 and 22 March. The number involved in businesses also increased, from 206 to 230.
The average number of people entering into a new personal insolvency per fortnight between 1 July 2019 and 22 March 2020 is 844.
</body></html>

Insolvency and bankruptcy spike due to Covid-19: AFSA

<html><body>
A former Cleveland real estate agent has been reprimanded and ordered to pay a $10,000 fine by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) following proceedings initiated by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT).
Pamela Dawn Neilson faced disciplinary action after she failed to notify the OFT that she had become bankrupt, gave false information to the OFT when applying to renew her real estate agent licence, and had continued to sell properties while unlicensed.
In addition to a $10,000 fine, Ms Neilson was also suspended from holding a certificate under the Property Occupations Act 2014 (the Act) for four months.
The Tribunal heard Ms Neilson had held a real estate agent licence since 2005 but failed to inform the OFT when she became bankrupt in October 2015, as is required under the Act.
Ms Neilson’s bankruptcy made her immediately unsuitable to hold a real estate licence however between October 2015 and January 2017 she continued to work in a real estate salesperson capacity, selling 21 properties.
The Tribunal also heard that on 29 September 2016 Ms Neilson lodged a licence renewal application, which included a signed declaration that she was not currently bankrupt. Ms Neilson eventually advised the OFT of her bankruptcy on 16 December 2016.
On 20 December 2019 the Tribunal released its decision in this matter. It found Ms Neilson had conducted herself in a way that was unprofessional but in determining penalty noted she had subsequently self-reported her conduct, had cooperated with the OFT’s investigation and had accepted the disciplinary grounds.
Fair Trading Executive Director Brian Bauer said real estate agents needed to remember the importance of acting in accordance with their licensing requirements.
“Agents must be honest about their circumstances and aware of their obligations,” Mr Bauer said.
</body></html>

Former bankrupt Queensland estate cops $10,000 fine

<html><body>
The personal insolvency regulator, the Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA), has identified and proven over $4 million of fraud, according to a new report released today.  
The Personal Insolvency Compliance Report, available now on the AFSA website, outlines AFSA’s compliance, regulatory and enforcement activities across the 2018-19 financial year.  
Hamish McCormick, Chief Executive of AFSA and Inspector-General in Bankruptcy, said the annual Personal Insolvency Compliance Report provides insight into the regulation of Australia’s personal insolvency system.
“AFSA is working to be both a firm and a fair regulator,” McCormick said.
“We undertake regulatory and compliance work to ensure that the personal insolvency system is equitable, and that all participants are meeting their obligations.
“Overall, we aim to provide the community with a personal insolvency system that they can have confidence in.”
McCormick highlighted some of the report’s key findings – including complaints against registered trustees and criminal prosecutions.
“In 2018-19, we received nearly 2,000 referrals of alleged misconduct,” McCormick said.
“We analysed each referral and found that 744 warranted further investigation. We referred 115 of these matters to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
“In total, 96 individuals were prosecuted for offences under the Bankruptcy Act. Our prosecutions attracted wide-ranging penalties, from fines to imprisonment.
“Pleasingly the number of prosecutions decreased in 2018-19, down from 137 in the previous year. The overall value of proven fraud also dropped, down from $5.5 million in 2017-18 to $4.6 million.”
Complaints about registered trustees, and the Commonwealth Government’s Official Trustee, both increased in 2018-19.
“In 2018-19 we received 296 complaints about practitioners, up from 257 the year prior. Similarly, complaints about the Official Trustee also rose – we received 48 compared to 10 in 2017-18.
“However, only nine complaints about registered trustees were found to be justified. And only one complaint about the Official Trustee was justified.”
The report noted that the conduct of untrustworthy bankruptcy advisers remains a potential threat to community confidence in the personal insolvency system.
In 2018-19, AFSA made a concerted effort to disrupt the activities of untrustworthy advisers, who provide dodgy advice to people at a time when they are in financial difficulty and vulnerable.
“In 2018-19, we worked closely with registered trustees and industry bodies to identify and disrupt untrustworthy advisers,” McCormick said.
“During the year we finalised three prosecutions involving untrustworthy advisers, and one more is still in progress.
“We will continue to target untrustworthy advisers in an effort to protect the integrity of the personal insolvency system. And where appropriate, we will refer matters to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for action.”
The full report is available now on the <a href="https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/K-fmCvl1lzI0l6WRhQWS8P?domain=news.afsa.gov.au" target="_blank">AFSA website</a>.
</body></html>

Bankruptcy fraud on AFSA agenda with more than $4 million of frauds identified 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Capital city universities can use income from foreign students to maintain their buildings. Their regional cousins are struggling.
Unless the federal government changes its funding policy for universities, less well-off ones, particularly regional universities, are going to fail.
In Britain, it is already happening. Several <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/02/university-bankrupt-inevitable-market-forces" target="_blank">bankruptcies</a> are imminent.
In Australia, many are clearly in financial difficulties and are trying to raise money any way they can.
During the election campaign, ABC’s <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/cash-cows/11084858" target="_blank">Four Corners</a> highlighted questionable practices in the recruitment of full-fee paying international students at institutions including Murdoch University and Central Queensland University.
Desperate for funds…
The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency has found “<a href="https://www.standard.net.au/story/6182757/charles-sturt-university-defends-itself-after-registration-blow/" target="_blank">severe shortcomings</a>” in the performance of Charles Sturt University, sufficient to reduce its period of accreditation from seven to four years.
In an extraordinary move, the departing Vice Chancellor of the University of Canberra has asked his staff to <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-03/university-of-canberra-staff-asked-to-donate-money/11076868" target="_blank">donate</a> up to A$1,000 per annum to “support students”.
It’s easy to blame the universities themselves, but it is the government that has designed the policies that have forced them up against a financial brick wall.
This situation has come about partly because of a pea and thimble trick performed by both Labor and the Coalition. While recurrent funding has risen due to the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government’s introduction of “demand driven” funding, it has been followed by a withdrawal of capital funding.
…but it’s not their fault
In 2015 the Coalition <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/education-investment-fund">axed</a> A$11 billion Education Investment Fund set up by Labor in 2008 to maintain infrastructure “<a href="https://archive.budget.gov.au/2008-09/speech/speech.pdf" target="_blank">in urgent need of attention</a>”. In 2017 it <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/18/coalitions-22bn-cut-from-universities" target="_blank">froze recurrent funding</a>.
Four years after the Education Investment Fund was axed, estimates from the higher education facilities consultancy ARINA put the maintenance deficit at more than the <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/policy/education/23bn-crisis-looms-for-university-buildings-20130603-je6aa" target="_blank">A$23 billion dollars</a> that was estimated at the time. That’s what’s needed to return campuses to a condition where they are fit for purpose.
Although the new government has announced <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/news/minister-education-announces-16-regional-study-hubs" target="_blank">small additional funding</a> for regional universities, it is nowhere near enough. Many have <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-has-education-policy-changed-under-the-coalition-government-113921" target="_blank">dilapidated campuses</a> that are hard to work or study in. University buildings constructed during the 1960s are nearing the end of their useful lives.
It’s alright for the Group of Eight
The current funding model works best for the prestigious Group of Eight (Go8) universities – those named after the cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide as well as the states of NSW, Queensland and Western Australia plus Monash University and the Australian National University.
The universities in Sydney and Melbourne have the best access to high-quality full-fee paying international students, although even for them there are issues.
The Go8 universities require huge amounts of capital to build facilities to support research in the STEM disciplines: science, technology, engineering and medicine. Under current funding policy, most of which now has to come from recurrent student income.
The proportion of international students at the biggest Go8 campuses <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://docs.education.gov.au/node/51956" target="_blank">climbs year by year</a>. And they are continuing to <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://docs.education.gov.au/node/51956" target="_blank">expand domestic enrolments</a> as fast as they can.
For the rest, options to fund capital works are limited. While some may have recruited international students regardless of quality, others are getting new buildings by doing deals with property developers.
There are few options for others
Western Sydney University is <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/policy/education/university-generates-income-through-land-development-in-the-face-of-government-cutbacks-20190219-h1bgm6" target="_blank">renting</a> its new “state of the art” campus in the Parramatta CBD. Unfortunately, the rental model carries risks because it narrows the options for reducing costs if revenue falls.
Revenue can fall for many reasons outside the control of the university, including an abrupt reduction in the number of international students due to geopolitical factors or changes in government policy on immigration.
Rent is also more expensive than direct funding because the price charged includes margins for commercial risk and profit. The property sector likes the idea, but then it would, wouldn’t it?
The best way to fund needed capital works on university buildings, and make sure they survive, is for the government to return to making capital payments on the basis of need. It would mean that universities facing a chronic shortage of capital wouldn’t need to resort to extreme measures.
Direct funding would mean they would have to conform to government-imposed area and cost standards for buildings. This would put welcome downward pressure on building costs, which have soared for some of the big city universities that have access to cash from international students.
City universities win design awards
General academic buildings, and those providing offices and teaching space, are in some cases being delivered for <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/policy/education/higher-learning-not-a-matter-of-luxury-20141208-12272h" target="_blank">twice as much as they were 20 years ago</a>, corrected for inflation, in large part because they have become unnecessarily elaborate, in part to attract foreign students.
The Monash <a href="https://www.monash.edu/about/our-locations/clayton-campus/learning-and-teaching-building/construction-program" target="_blank">learning and teaching building</a> and the University of Melbourne <a href="https://msd.unimelb.edu.au/about/msd-building" target="_blank">architecture building</a> are examples, as is the A$180 million University of Technology Sydney <a href="https://www.uts.edu.au/partners-and-community/initiatives/city-campus-master-plan/completed-projects/dr-chau-chak-wing" target="_blank">business school building</a>.
Instead of making every new university building an award-winning icon, we ought to be content with making at least some of them just good.
Providing capital funding to universities is likely to cost at least an extra <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/policy/education/23bn-crisis-looms-for-university-buildings-20130603-je6aa" target="_blank">A$1.5 billion a year</a>. But that’s small compared to the <a href="https://internationaleducation.gov.au/research/Research-Snapshots/Documents/Export%20Income%20CY%202017.pdf" target="_blank">more than A$30 billion</a> international education exports are said to pump into the economy.
It is also small compared to what would happen if they folded or failed to deliver the research we need.
Others can afford little
The sector can help its own case by focusing more on building costs and less on winning design awards. University peak bodies in Britain play an active role in benchmarking building and operational costs. <a href="https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/" target="_blank">Universities Australia</a> should consider doing the same.
It ought to be in a position to document improvements in the operational efficiency of universities and highlight the magnitude of the maintenance funding needed. At the moment, it is not.
No one, including the government, really wants a university to fail. The cost of recovery would probably end up being borne taxpayers and the impact on students would be devastating.
It is in the interests of all Australians to have a university funding model that does not send less well-off universities to the wall, including most of our regional universities.
The current model generates perverse incentives to reduce acceptance standards for international students, encourages universities to use expensive developer-provided sources of capital and has driven the creation of mega campuses that are more about income than student outcomes. We can and should do better.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/109374/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/geoff-hanmer-90647" target="_blank">Geoff Hanmer</a>, Adjunct Lecturer in Architecture, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-1414" target="_blank">UNSW</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-regional-universities-are-at-risk-of-going-under-109374" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Why regional universities are at risk of going under: Geoff Hanmer

<html><body>
Australia’s most infamous property spruiker Rick Otton, the controversial How To Buy A House For $1 author, has filed for bankruptcy, crippled by the largest fine in corporate history.
It comes five months after he and his company were fined $18 million for misleading property investors following ACCC legal action.
The Federal Court judgment found breaches of Australian Consumer Law of $12 million against Otton’s business and $6 million against him personally.
But his four bank accounts have just $18,800, including $5.74 with NAB, ­according to his statement of affairs filed on the national personal insolvency index at the Australian Financial Security Authority.
There was $37,000 owing on his credit cards.
Otton’s We Buy Houses company had been conducting “training programs” since 2000.
It is known that between 2011 and 2014, he generated around $20 million in revenue from the training programs.
The Court found that Otton made false or misleading representations that his students could successfully implement the wealth creation strategies he taught.
About 3400 consumers attended the free seminars, and a further 2000 people attended the boot camps. Would-be investors were given some information at the initial free session, then more if they paid $3000 to attend the boot camp or the $26,000 mentoring workshops.
The court noted “there may have been consumers who were determined to buy the respondents’ snake oil regardless of the respondents’ conduct”.
Otton, who demonstrated he was “profoundly uninterested” in compliance, was banned from managing corporations for 10 years in Australia.
Otton’s last property deal was the recent sale of his own Bondi Beach semi.
The four-bedroom Roscoe Street property, listed with a $3.2 million to $3.5 million price guide, fetched $2.9 million last December, having been bought in 2007 for $1.6 million.
He now gives his address as a one bedroom Coogee flat.
His paperwork advised his occupation now as a retiree.
There was little property listed as assets, just a Otton family superannuation trust owning a $2 million commercial building, along with an option to buy a 45,000 Euro apartment building at Saint Spyridonas in Greece, where he's shifted his spruiking sessions.
Otton taught real estate investment strategies that suggested students could buy a house for $1, without needing a deposit, bank loan or real estate experience, using little or none of their own money to create passive income streams through property.
They were advised they could quit their jobs to start making profits immediately.
In August 2017, the Federal Court found these claims were misleading, in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law, with Otton lodging an appeal.
The book authored by Otton, and websites included testimonials from ‘students’ claiming they were able to buy a house for $1, which the court found were false.
The ACCC instituted proceedings against We Buy Houses and Otton in 2015 following a co-ordinated investigation with New South Wales Fair Trading. 
Justice Jacqueline Gleeson’s judgment said consumers enticed by Otton were given a variety of strategies which included “rent-to-buy”, a “sandwich lease option” involving a middleman, and “sweat equity” option, where the buyer carries out renovations in lieu of paying a deposit.
Justice Gleeson accepted that some of the strategies were theoretically possible, but added there was no evidence they had been used by its students successfully.
None of WBH’s most successful students, known as “big kahunas”, provided evidence to the court to show what they had claimed to have achieved.
The ACCC called nine consumers as witnesses to describe how they had never achieved success.
One consumer and his partner attempted to buy properties in Bass Hill, Quakers Hill, Homebush West, North Bondi, Eastlakes and Lake Haven without financial success.
“In her judgment on liability, Justice Gleeson said the free seminars were a waste of time, and that the boot camps and the mentoring programs were an expensive waste of time,” the ACCC chairman Rod Sims said.
The decision imposed the largest pecuniary penalty order against an individual and separately, against a corporation, for breaches of the ACL, has been heralded as a new era of tougher penalties for ACL breaches.
This article was first published in the Sunday Telegraph.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Property spruiker Rick Otton files for bankruptcy

<html><body>
A Canada Bay property associated with the family of the bankrupted property developer Salim Mehajer was pulled from weekend auction.
The family’s Canada Bay investment property came with plans for a mega mansion.
The site has a rundown 1970s home at <a href="http://www.timerealty.com.au/1P0567" target="_blank">555 Lyons Road West.</a>
<div class="story-content">
The auction sign had “withdrawn” slapped across the sign.
Canada Bay Council had rejected Mehajer’s plans for the huge Canada Bay home.
“We’ve had an offer, but it wouldn’t be accepted,” Century 21s Fay Petrou told The Sunday Telegraph.
</div>
</body></html>

Mehajer family Canada Bay investment offering pulled from auction

<html><body>
The gangland matriarch Roberta Williams' Essendon home is set to be seized and sold off by the taxman.
It follows a ruling in the Supreme Court of Victoria.
Roberta, the widow of slain drug lord Carl Williams, had been embroiled in a legal dispute with the Australian Taxation Office over the estate of her father-in-law George Williams.
He died in 2016 owing more than $576,000 in unpaid taxes.
On 20 November 2007 the Australian Taxation Office had issued to George Williams amended assessments of income tax for the years ended 30 June 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, together with notices of assessment and liability to pay a penalty.
The legal fight centred on who should take control of the home after George left it to his under-age granddaughter, Dhakota, in his will.
The women in his life are at loggerheads about how to carve up what he owned, with allegations flying between daughter-in-law Roberta Williams and his de facto Kathleen Bourke, who told the court she is unable to sell the property as she does not have physical possession of it.
Both are executors of the estate.
Williams retains all keys.
Bourke advised she does not have the physical ability to remove Williams from the property.
The ATO had agreed in 2013 to become the mortgagee on the Essendon property rather than force the convicted drug trafficker to sell the home to cover the debt.
The deal gave George time and resources to wage a separate lawsuit against the state government for compensation over his son's murder in prison in 2010.
But after losing that case, George reneged on the ATO agreement and refused to pay the tax debt.
<div data-reactid="450">
Roberta continued to refuse to sell the home after George's death, claiming no tax debt existed because it was supposed to be wiped away by a 2009 deal struck with Victoria Police in return for Carl providing information about a series of murders committed during the bloody Underbelly War (1999-2006).
Carl was bashed to death inside Barwon prison in 2010.
Victoria Police cancelled the deal to pay George's tax debt and Roberta argued, as a result, her father-in-law was unconscionably coerced into mortgaging his house to the ATO – an argument rejected by the Supreme Court on Friday.
Associate Justice Mark Derham ruled Roberta had no claim to the house and the ATO be paid their costs from the sale of the home.
Williams alleged that George Williams suffered from a ‘special disability’ at the time he entered into the Settlement Agreement and Mortgage consisting of chronic heart-related conditions and severe depression, and that the plaintiffs were aware or ought to have been aware of the special disability.
Justice Derham ruled as "hopeless" and "vague" the assertion George had a 'special disability' at the time he entered a settlement agreement with the ATO.
</div>
<div data-reactid="462">
"The second defendant (Williams) has failed to identify any proper legal foundation for her generalised arguments," he said.
"In these circumstances, to suggest that the Commonwealth’s officers should have somehow discerned the existence of a ‘special disadvantage’ that his own lawyers were unaware of is, frankly, ludicrous."
"There is nothing unconscientious about George Williams (through his personal representatives) being held to a bargain he entered voluntarily, and on the advice of experienced litigation lawyers."
Roberta, who is an undischarged bankrupt and convicted drug trafficker, also personally owes the ATO $300,000.
The judge ruled Williams had "chosen to defend the proceedings without a reasonable basis to do so and ought not to have any indemnity for her costs from the estate."
</div>
</body></html>

Bankruptcy

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Bankruptcy

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News