• Was this fertiliser group taken to the cleaners by insolvency group and ANZ?

    Date: 2019.06.16 | Category: 苏州美甲美睫培训学校 | Tags:

    “Find out what yanks their chain. Prepare to get PO in court as soon as possible. Wants dirt on PO” – ANZ chief risk officer Chris Page giving directions to liquidators PPB.

    “PO” is Pankaj Oswal, the flamboyant Indian petrochemical billionaire who came to Perth and set up the Burrup fertiliser plant. Burrup was trading profitably but ANZ put him into receivership and now Perth Federal Court judge Antony Siopis has ordered an inquiry into the conduct of the receivers PPB and how they managed to charge $34 million over 13 months, including $13 million on lawyers Freehills Herbert Smith.

    Besides the instructions from ANZ executive Chris Page to get “dirt” on Oswal – contained in a file note of a conference call – a slew of embarrassing revelations has emerged in the Federal Court proceedings in Perth.

    Here’s a taste: the Oswals claim PPB spent 48 hours filling out a form (a “second form 524”) and charged $19,240. Further high charges were incurred for the filling out of another form (a “third form 524”), a task which apparently endured for 19 hours though, according to the allegations, the form was still not filled out correctly.

    Before we delve further into the detail of these meaty charges, some context. Belligerent billing by liquidators and lawyers is hardly news but there is broader significance in the Burrup case as it is one of two epic legal battles afoot where judges have actually stepped in and investigated the behaviour of the insolvency profession – even to the point of lifting the veil of legal secrecy.

    The other is the Homeric year-long legal battle between John Viscariello and the Adelaide establishment, where judgment is slated to be handed down next week in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

    In an interim judgment in August 2012, Chief Justice Chris Kourakis dealt the liquidator of Viscariello’s home wares business (Peter Macks, then also from PPB) and his solicitors, Minter Ellison, a brutal blow.

    “I have formed the view that the proceedings were prosecuted recklessly, indifferent to the possibility that they might be an abuse,” he found.

    The liquidator had chewed up $500,000 chasing a debt of just $28,000. That $28,000 debt belonged to Viscariello’s girlfriend at the time, Tanya Hamilton-Smith. The case got personal. PPB and Minters tried to get at Viscariello’s assets by bankrupting Hamilton-Smith and a plethora of lawsuits ensued.

    In the Viscariello case, the dogged plaintiff, John Viscariello, became a lawyer and funded the cases himself. In Burrup, the lawsuits have been funded by Oswal, a billionaire who feels slighted by the system – though his own conduct as chairman of Burrup had certainly not been beyond reproach.

    Responding for this story, ANZ said Oswal’s wife has previously admitted in court documents her husband forged security documents and they had “refused to return to Australia to face these serious allegations”.

    “Mr Page’s colloquial language shouldn’t distract from the serious fraud and tax allegations Mr Oswal is currently facing,” it said. “Given the gravity of the situation, it was incumbent on ANZ to ensure these allegations were fully investigated.”

    A statement from PPB Advisory said the firm “looks forward to addressing the matters you and Mr Oswal have raised in the appropriate forum: the Federal Court. The receivership of the Burrup Fertilisers assets involved very great complexity. PPB is proud of the outcome of the receivership and of the integrity of its people carrying out their roles”.

    The Oswals claim the receivership of the Burrup fertiliser plant ought to have been a relatively straightforward affair. The plant was not put up for sale. Aside from departure of Pankaj Oswal, there were no major changes in its 100-strong workforce. It was sitting on millions of dollars of cash and made a profit of $10 million a month. This was no distressed asset. Yet, according to Oswal, what resulted was a no holds barred fee frenzy in respect of which he was obliged to pick up the tab.  He has petitioned the court for a refund. He also wants each of the receivers deregistered, fined and banned from practice.

    Had not these actions – both Burrup and Viscariello – been well funded and pursued with high indignation, however, the behaviour of the liquidators and the lawyers might never have come to light.

    The central question for Siopis in the Burrup matter is whether there was a “proper purpose” for the charges incurred by PPB and its assorted advisers.

    Of the $34 million in receivership costs over just 13½ months, PPB raked in $14 million in fees, including $2.2 million in the last six weeks. PPB claims the receivership was a complex one with litigation to resolve. Legal fees in the last six weeks of the receivership were $1.4 million, mostly accruing to Freehills.

    Here is a sample of some of the claims about the receivership.

    * PPB flew wives and personal assistants interstate for New Year Eve celebrations;

    * The unlawful charging of pre-appointment fees;

    * Discrepancies between time sheets and invoices;

    * Charging for work that was allegedly never performed;

    * PPB staff recording exactly 7.5 hours a day;

    * Charging for dry-cleaning, groceries, snacks, stationery and even a traffic infringement notice;

    * Using Burrup’s corporate box at the Fremantle Football Club;

    * Charging for the solicitation of post-receivership work;

    * Resourcing the receivership with its staff from Melbourne whose travels cost Oswal a staggering $2.8 million.


    PPB invoiced partner Brendan Rew for $765 to “trip to Dalkeith and Peppermint Grove personal properties to conduct surveillance” on Pankaj Oswal. Another employee, Royden Saldana, was charged out for $620 for “travel to and from the directors’ properties”.

    Among the large unitemised invoices to ANZ was $149,000 spent in last three days of receivership. Partner Jeff Herbert spent 14 hours doing “privileged”. Partner Simon Theobald also spent five hours doing “privileged”; examples of what the Oswals’ claim describes as “alleged activity”.

    Among the $2.8 million in travel costs was a hotel bill, $948 per night, for a Joshua Stacks, an “Analyst/Intermediate 1”.

    The receivership was also billed for “government liaison” – some $13,200 by Robert Fisher who urged that Burrup renew its sponsorship and box at the Fremantle Football Club from September 2011 to January 2012.

    “One of the reasons Mr Fisher identified for such renewal was that PPB staff had used the table at the President’s Suite along with the ‘prime position seating’ to the games and obtained access to government officials and business leaders,” claims the Oswal pleadings.

    Then there were charges of $172,000 for PR firm Hintons, including $58,654.75 for “media monitoring services and press releases” in the last six weeks of the receivership.

    Also included in the travel expense was a traffic infringement notice. Some $1.4 million went on “professional fees” for professionals travelling and conducting while undertaking “travel-related activities”. Of this, $573,000 was incurred for activities carried out while on an aircraft.

    Although PPB chose to send a lot of staff from Melbourne to Perth to conduct the receivership, there were still bills for flights to Los Angeles, New York, Singapore, Hong Kong, India and London.

    Partners, of which there were many, flew business class. Also, their personal assistants were flown to Perth and put up in hotels. Emily Bruce was flown from Melbourne to Perth to for four nights over New Year’s Eve 2010 and was accommodated at the Duxton Hotel, and again in January. No activities related to Burrup have been cited, according to the claim.

    Another PA, Emily Smith, also flew to Perth around New Year’s in 2010 for four nights.

    Siopis has reserved his judgment in an application by receivers and PPB partners Ian Carson, David McEvoy and Theobald to keep out of court many of the embarrassing allegations of misconduct made against them.

    In a hearing on October 15, Oswal’s barrister, Martin Goldblatt, used the term “tantamount to fraud” a number of times. He said the  PPB documents obtained under discovery had “lifted the veil of secrecy under which this receivership was conducted” and “reveal a systematic failure of administration and integrity right from the outset and until the very end”.

    PPB’s legal team asked the court to limit the scope of the inquiry.

    The Oswals’ legal team has accused ANZ of “aiding, abetting of being knowingly concerned … in breaches of duty … by the receivers and others” and “conducting the receivership for improper purpose”.

    This story Administrator ready to work first appeared on 苏州美甲美睫培训学校.