Quote:
Originally Posted by mellowman307
Battlefield is not the largest single creditor.
The authors of the debacle are and they will be awarded a huge dividend for their incompetence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baglady
And that would be who? And that information is shown where?
If you review the Liquidator's report the Trade Creditors are owed $2M.
Also noted in the report is a Management and Operational Services Agreement with Fuze Media Pty Ltd, (trade creditor)
Fuze Media Pty Ltd owned 104,177/106,221 of the shares of Tusk, (98% of the shares).
It follows that Fuze Media represents the largest portion of the $2M in trade credit and therefore will recieve the largest dividend cheque.
From the beginning of the thread in the Zoo, this has played out like the old tale of the blind men and the elephant, (appropriate when dealing with a company called Tusk)
From Wikipedia:
"In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one touches a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one's perspective, suggesting that what seems an absolute truth may be relative due to the deceptive nature of half-truths."
In order to more fully understand what has truly transpired here one has to do a lot of research and understand the implications of what they uncover.
Starting with, who are Kenneth Talbot and Robert James Canning-Ure, their backgrounds and how they make their money.
Why would an Australian company register an offshore company where they are not allowed to do business?
Why would a company that was effectively bankrupt try to represent a value of $19M in a reverse takeover of a publically listed company?
When required by law to hold the player's purse in a segregated account how does a company manage to get a hold of those funds anyway?
Why does a company who is consistently losing money continue rather than go into liquidation sooner to mitigate losses?
When going into liquidation how does a company steer the type of liquidation into one with the least scrutiny by the creditors?
I'm not seeing the whole elephant yet and am actually statute barred from seeing the whole picture without a court order but what evidence I have been able to piece together I think that an investigation by ASIC has the chance to force a full recovery of the players purse.