[ad_1]
The claim alleges that the company and Mr Prout knew that Big Un’s share price had risen after it reported huge quarterly profits that were not sales, but actually loans provided by the company.
In a statement to Australian Financial Review IFC Capital said it intends to “vigorously defend the claim” and that “to date, the allegations in the claim have not been supported by any evidence.”
ASX-listed Big Un was founded by father and son Richard and Brandon Evertz. It was the top performer on the Australian sharemarket in 2017 after it reported a four-fold increase in quarterly revenue to $22.5 million.
However, the Australian Financial Review the investigation uncovered the existence of financial arrangements for FC Capital, its payment of BRTVs assets including the balance, and evidence that BRTV raised invoices that were not tied to the actual sale.
That forced Big Un to reveal that millions of dollars in cash receipts were loans provided by FC Capital through a syndicated financing arrangement backed by the condition, not real, of its video service.
The scandal caused Big Un to restate its accounts for 2017 to show that the cash receipts were loans, leading to a loss of 52 million dollars. Both BRTV and its listed parent Big Un were put into administration.
The Big Un saga has led the ASX to tighten listing rules, internal prosecutions and lawsuits brought by a corporate regulator against Big Un’s auditors.
However, the claim of the bankrupt is the first to take FC Capital and Mr Prout for their role in providing the money.
The publishers want to recover losses and damages amounting to $42 million, which was the amount owed to Big Review TV by FC Capital.
FC Capital disbursed its $23 million loan to the newly formed entity, ASCV, on the eve of the auctioneer’s appointment in November 2018.
ACSV filed a $45 million debt settlement including interest and penalties, but agreed to buy BRTV’s intellectual property and video library to clear the debt.
Those assets were sold to FC Capital in late 2020 by ACSV, according to the Federal Court, with a consideration of $42 million.
Mr Prout did not respond to a breathalyzer request.
Appearing in public hearings regarding the management of Big Un, Mr Prout said that FC Capital’s main concern was whether the terms and conditions were sufficient for them.
He added that he would challenge any argument that funding should be treated as advertising “because the arrangement has always been a financial arrangement”.
IFC Capital said it intends to “vigorously defend the claim” which so far has not been supported by evidence.
It said the claim appears to have been filed on the last day of the six-year statute of limitations that applies to such claims, and added that FC Capital is “fully cooperating” with inquiries from regulators and creditors. four and a half years ago.
“None of these previous inquiries have ever led to any allegations, lawsuits or charges against FC Capital,” the lender said.
[ad_2]
Source link