But in a sense you are,
ASIC will not get any of your money back.
I do get that you want people to contact ASIC,
And it's fair enough.
Just to name call if people don't tell you they have,
Isn't the best way to go about getting people on your side.
A Class Action Can get $$$$ back.
Any return is an infinite multiple of the $0 ASIC will get you.
The only thing that will hurt these guys is costing them money,
Or Assets ,
eg. if they lose their houses or other assets which they acquired by stating they had funding,
When they did not.
They stated it was secured and mentioned SGC for 4 years:
That's 4 years of wages. (plus shares, options etc.)
Also Mr Dickson now owns the IP:
- Mr Newton submitted that Mr Devine was referring to essentially three possibilities that warranted investigation by the administrators at this early stage of the administration:
(1) a possible DOCA proposal utilising funding of approximately $8.647 million to be provided by ER, together with the subordination of
the debt owed by IGE to Fandola Investments Pty Ltd (Fandola).
Mr Dickson is the sole shareholder,
director and secretary of Fandola;
(2) a possible DOCA proposal utilising funding of approximately USD $90 million to be made available to IGE by SGC; or
(3) some combination of (1) and (2) above.
40.According to Mr Clark’s affidavit sworn on 26 May 2021, Fandola is the largest trade creditor of the IGE Group.
[16] The amount owing to Fandola is approximately AUD $24.5 million.
[17] It is Mr Devine’s understanding, based on information provided by Mr Clark, that Fandola holds security over intellectual property owned by IGE Singapore, and that intellectual property is the IGE Group’s most important asset because companies in the IGE Group would be unable to pursue any projects without the intellectual property.
41 .When it was put to him in cross-examination that the IGE Group would not be able to pursue any projects if the intellectual property was sold, Mr Dickson referred to the possibility of a sale of the intellectual property to a third party who would then licence it back to the IGE Group. No evidence was adduced that would enable the Court to form a view as to whether such a sale and licence back arrangement is a realistic or fanciful possibility. It was not mentioned in Mr Dickson’s affidavit, and appeared to be an idea formed on the run in cross-examination.
- No funds have flowed from SGC to IGE under the SGC loan agreement in the period of almost four years since it was signed on about 6 July 2017.
_______________________________________________________________
So basically,
Dickson owns the IP and let them rack up a debt with him,
IGE was stripped of it's major Asset, it's IP,
Without it it cannot complete it's projects.
Or operate in the Sector of all shareholders thought it did,
Using it's IP, (Plastics to Fuel)
Originally created by Bevan.
Now it's in a Singapore Co.
That Dickson himself only: owns, runs etc.
If this debt hadn't been allowed to get so high,
This situation would not have occurred,
And they would not have received wages for years.
All a bit of fancy paperwork,
To strip the Co. of it's IP. so it cannot continue without paying his other Co.
This sort of stuff used to happen in the 80's,
And some big names did time for it.
It was all over the Media,
As people hate(ed) this sort of thing happening.
To think 40 years later the ASX is just as bad would be a huge story in itself.
The ASX and ASIC should have done a better job of checking the Funding was genuine,
Funding was mentioned under several of the Co's previous names.
Australians would not like the Idea,
Of Australian developed tech, (it's IP)
Being taken from Australia in such a way.
The case Law is all there,
And it's all easy enough to follow the paper trail....
This sort of thing is nothing new....
