Stephen walker liquidating dating customs in south korea

Posted by / 16-Jun-2020 23:30

Stephen walker liquidating

We can’t therefore eliminate the possibility that Cass and Landeryou are indeed attempting to create an elaborate smokescreen to coerce or bluff the liquidator into settling so that efforts to trace the allegedly missing

We can’t therefore eliminate the possibility that Cass and Landeryou are indeed attempting to create an elaborate smokescreen to coerce or bluff the liquidator into settling so that efforts to trace the allegedly missing $1 million are discontinued.

||

We can’t therefore eliminate the possibility that Cass and Landeryou are indeed attempting to create an elaborate smokescreen to coerce or bluff the liquidator into settling so that efforts to trace the allegedly missing $1 million are discontinued.

The judgment seems implicitly to assume that the $1 million (if it ever existed) is irrecoverable, but no clear explanation is given.

The ASIC report showed that the liquidator had received amounts totalling about $5.28M, made payments totalling about $4.65M, had about $628,000 available but not distributed out of which he would be claiming about $495,000 for his own fees and expenses, and had received proofs of debt totalling about $4.48M.

Next to those items, Mr Cass made comments such as: “ This is how much Mc Veigh reckons he will get out of suing bankrupts, near bankrupts, insolvent companies and 20 year olds!

Cass’s intimidatory acts were to make a series of inflammatory allegations against Mc Veigh, both in a circular letter to MUSU creditors and on Cass’s blog called Make Mc Veigh Pay.

Cass’s allegations included claims that Mc Veigh was a “crook”, “incompetent” and “less concerned about creditors than he is about the financial benefit of himself and his lawyers”.

Moreover, creditors commonly (and mostly correctly) assume that they have little or no chance of ever seeing a substantial payment from the liquidator, and so are reluctant to throw good money after bad by paying lawyers to scrutinise the liquidator’s conduct.

million are discontinued.

A judge on an injunction application is merely determining whether there is a “serious question to be tried” and where the “balance of convenience” lies as to whether an injunction ought to be granted until trial (in this case to restrain Cass from continuing to publish derogatory comments about the liquidator on his blog and to MUSU creditors directly).Mr Cass’s statements clearly give the impression that Mr Mc Veigh is not discharging his duties to creditors.The liquidator’s counsel conceded that it was not improper for Mr Cass to express an opinion about whether or not the liquidation has been handled competently.In more general terms, this case brings into sharp focus the whole area of corporate liquidations.Leaving aside the specific facts of this case, I’ve always thought that there is a massive conflict between a company liquidator’s duty to maximise recovery in the interests of creditors (and in rare cases, shareholders) and the liquidator’s self-interest in maximising his own fees.

stephen walker liquidating-26stephen walker liquidating-54stephen walker liquidating-42