Podcasts about pty ltd

Think saving is enough? That debt is bad? That retiring at 65 is normal? You've been sold a lie. In this episode of No BS with Birchy, Nathan exposes the system keeping Aussies broke and shares how to break free using debt the right way.

Have you ever wondered how some investors manage to keep buying property after property, while others get stuck? In this episode of the No BS with Birchy podcast, Nathan is joined by Sumit from Zinger Finance and Ridhwan from OnePath Accountants to talk about borrowing strategies, borrowing through trusts and optimising your borrowing capacity in ways the banks won't tell you about. Show Notes 02:20 – What is borrowing capacity? 05:43 – How do banks determine your borrowing capacity? 07:48 – What would be the average income for a borrower? 10:07 – Buying in your personal name vs trusts 14:02 – What is infinite borrowing capacity? 19:55 – Why the structure of the trusts is important 22:28 – Tips from a Broker 28:00 – Every strategy is different for different people 34:40 – It's important to look at whole landscape 38:36 – You need to look at your current position 40:06 – Is lending sequencing more important? 45:02 – Pros and cons of trusts 52:30 – Where do you see the future of borrowing? 57:15 – What's one thing you wished more people knew?  1:06:35 – There's a lot of value in the diversity of a Broker If you would like help assessing your lending strategy or setting up a trust, contact Zinger Finance or OnePath Accountants below: https://zingerfinance.com.au/financial-health-check/https://www.onepathaccountants.com.au/#contact Make your move on your property journey today: https://binvested.com.au/contact-us/ What are your thoughts on this video? Share them below and show us some love if you found this video useful.

From massive wins to raw regrets, this is the best of No BS with Birchy. Real investors. Real talk.  Real value. They've made moves most people only dream of — and they're telling all. If you're serious about investing and securing your future, don't scroll past this.

“Don't call the meeting to sell those shares!”___P was a shareholder in D1. D1 owned Techshares, shares in TechCo: [1]D1 did not trade. Its purpose was holding Techshares: [16] The Techshares were illiquid: [25], [26]A GM of D1 was called proposing D1 would either (i) sell the Techshares to a specified purchaser or (ii) failing that, go into MVL: [2]P sought injunctions restraining D1 from calling the meeting: [3]P said: P had made a purchase offer more favourable to D1 than the proposed offer, and inadequate time had been given to consider proposal (i): [6](An earlier injunction had been granted, restraining D1 from issuing further shares that would dilute P's holding: [9], [10])Following the costs of the initial part of this litigation, D1's dirs represented that it would need funding or D1 would be placed in VA or MVL with the Techshares sold for “fire sale” prices: [19], [20], [24]D1 hoped to obtain TechCo's shareholder list to sell the Techshares. TechCo resisted, instead proposing Offeror: [30] - [32]Offers were made by Offeror: [34], [36]D1 sought TechCo's approval to “shop” Offeror's offer to other TechCo shareholders, but TechCo made no response: [39]Another, apparently more attractive offer, was made by another party backed by P's controlling mind: [42]Interestingly, P (having changed its name, leading to brief confusion) made a further more attractive offer: [47] - [51]The D1 dirs reviewed all offers and (including because of some opacity with P's finances) recommended that Offeror's (apparently less attractive) offer be accepted: [65]P provided evidence to show it had the assets to underpin its offer: [70] - [73]Further corro was exchanged regarding the P's (and the P's controlling mind's) ability to fund the offer: [74] - [78]The evidence put forward did not convince the Court of P's ability to fund the offer: [79]RE (i) the Court found no serious Q in part because P's argument (“a summary is not sufficient. The full offer should have been disclosed”) did not ID any part of the offer not disclosed in the offer summary: [87] - [91], [97], [101]With that, balance of convenience for (i) became irrelevant: [114]RE (ii) and the P's previous application re share dilution the Court was prepared to proceed as if there was a serious question to be tried: [119]The Court found the BoC favoured a limited injunction; a short delay on the SHs' ability to appoint a liquidator while they negotiated: [126]The outcome would have been different if P had sought a longer, or indefinite, injunction: [127]___Please follow James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and Gravamen on your favourite platform!www.gravamen.com.au

Birthday Takeover: We Flipped the Script on Nathan Birch

Nathan teams up with Simon the demographer to unpack what's really driving the property market in 2025. From migration surges to the decline of the middle class, this episode is packed with truth bombs that every investor needs to hear. If you're serious about building wealth through property, don't miss this one 01:10 – Real estate and elections  03:48 –Agricultural towns in decline due to technology and generational change. 06:25 –Migration boom post-COVID  08:48 –Australia's economic model relies on migration  10:45 –Millennials entering family stage, moving from city apartments to larger homes. 24:09 – Population Shifts and Logic in Migration 26:58 – Economic Lifecycle of a Person 33:14 – Erosion of the Middle Class 41:16 – Why Parents Should Downsize Early 46:17 – Why Politicians Won't Make Housing More Affordable 49:29 – Australia's Declining Economic Complexity   Make your move on your property journey today: https://binvested.com.au/contact-us/ What are your thoughts on this video? Share them below and show us some love if you found this video useful.

First-Ever Podcast with a Whiteboard Session!  In this groundbreaking episode of The Observatory Podcast, Nathan Birch takes a unique approach by combining his usual insights with a hands-on whiteboard session for the very first time!  Watch as he reveals unconventional strategies and creative solutions to overcome investment hurdles. From convertible leases to delayed settlements, Nathan dives deep into the world of property deals with a twist. Learn how to think outside the box and level up your investment game! Don't miss this exclusive, one-of-a-kind episode — it's time to discover the real strategies that the pros don't talk about!   Make your move on your property journey today: https://binvested.com.au/contact-us/ What are your thoughts on this video? Share them below and show us some love if you found this video useful.

In this week's episode of The WizeFactor Chat, we sit down with Daniel Vasin, Director of Vasin Holdings Pty Ltd—an accounting firm based in Australia.Daniel shares his journey from joining the family business in 2007 to taking full ownership in 2015—and the tough years that followed. Growth had stalled. Key clients were leaving. And the fire that once drove him? Gone.That all changed when he discovered Wize Mentoring. Daniel unpacks how the Wize blueprint gave him the clarity, structure, and confidence to stop doing all the work — and start building a business that can run without him.If you're feeling stuck in your firm, this is the story you need to hear.________________ PS: Whenever you're ready… here are the fastest 4 ways we can help you fix and grow your accounting firm: 1. Take the Wize Accountants Scale Scorecard – Find out your potential to scale and the next steps you should follow – Start Your Scorecard 2. Download our famous Wize Freedom Strategy Map for FREE - Find out the 96 projects every firm owner must implement to build a $5M+ firm that can run without them - Download here 2. Need to Hire right now? Book a 1:1 FREE discovery call with our WizeTalent hiring coaches to help find your next team member the Wize Way – Click Here 4. Book a 1:1 Wize Discovery Session – Spend 30mins with our Wize CEO, Jamie Johns, a $7M firm owner who is ready to give you his entire business plan to build a firm that can run without you – Find out more here

In this episode of No BS with Birchy, Nathan opens up about his own investments and why hands-on experience matters in this game. We lead by example because we only sell what we've personally experienced. Show Notes: 00:00 - Buying 100+ Properties Again 02:10 - Inflation is Still Driving the Strategy 03:20 - Breakdown of Properties Bought So Far 04:38 - Commercial Purchases + Buying Strategy 06:00 - Bulk Duplex Deal 07:01 - Rejected Deals Become His Wins 09:07 - Why He's Still Bullish on Cheap Properties Make your move on your property journey today: https://binvested.com.au/contact-us/ What are your thoughts on this video? Share them below and show us some love if you found this video useful.

Ever wondered if you can tap into your super to buy an investment property?  In this episode, Nathan is joined by Afiq Malek from Granada Wealth Advisory, a financial planner who knows the ins and outs of SMSF property investing.  If you're looking to take control of your super and want the facts, this one's for you. Show Notes 00:00 - Finding a good financial advisor is one in a million 04:28 - 90% of my job is saying no 07:03 - Your super fund is at the whims of the market 11:08 - Be your own financial advisor 15:25 - People don't know where their money is going 20:08 - Main differences between regular super and SMSF 24:55 - Leverage your super yourself 27:55 - Residential vs commercial property 33:06 - The strategies will be different for different stages of life 36:53 - What is the entry point for an SMSF? 40:48 - Benefits of using an SMSF 44:01 - You should be checking your super right now 48:16 - Be careful who you partner with Make your move on your property journey today: https://binvested.com.au/contact-us/ What are your thoughts on this video? Share them below and show us some love if you found this video useful.

Bongani Bingwa speaks to 702 MTN Small Business Awards finalist, Antonio Muchave, Co-Founder of Solve IT Consulting Pty Ltd, an IT solutions company about their business following a nomination from one happy customer.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Helping your kids enter the property market isn't just about handing over cash - it's about building generational wealth. In this episode, Nathan dives into the biggest mistakes parents make, challenges in today's property market, and strategies that set your kids up for financial success. Tune in for a blueprint on teaching financial literacy and helping your kids build lasting wealth! Show Notes 00:00 - Challenges of property ownership in 2025 and financial hurdles for first-time buyers 04:50 - Buying property with an investment mindset vs emotional mindset 10:30 - How to leverage equity? 11:25 - Developing a clear financial structure + risks and strategies 15:22 - Planning for retirement and your children's financial future 18:50 - Mental shift on the perception of debt and wealth 22:32 - Market risks and strategy in financial planning 30:05 - Family and joint ownership risks 33:23 - First-time homebuyer advice and strategy 37:45 - Professional help and expertise in property investment Make your move on your property journey today: https://binvested.com.au/contact-us/ What are your thoughts on this video? Share them below and show us some love if you found this video useful.

“That loan was for a purpose. Pay it back!”___P sued natural persons and Cos. D1 was not served and D2 was bankrupt, leaving P to pursue Cos only: [9]P's dad spoke with D1 and D2 about an investment. P later transferred $9.2m to one of the DCos: [3], [5]There was no written agreement: [6]In 2017, all agreed the $9.2m would be used for property investment, that if the property bought was then sold in a year 35% would be returned, and if unsold the funds would be returned: [6]In 2018, when the principal was not returned, the parties made a loan agreement, requiring repayment and interest: [8], [61]Repayments were not made. P sued: [9]P said the money was advanced to buy a specific property; and so was held in a purposive “Quistclose” trust. P said the money transferred to the other Cos was done with knowledge and so was recoverable: [11]The Ds denied a trust and said if there was one, then the loan agreement extinguished it: [12]The Ds served no evidence: [15]P had to prove the 2017 agreement, WITH a mutual intention that the funds would be used for a specific purpose, to be held on trust and returned if the purpose was not achieved: [21]P never discussed the proposed sum, proposed property or properties, location, or property size: [24]P said some docs sent after P's dad's the discussion were a representation that the money would be used for specific land: [29] - [31]There was no evidence of the purchase price being referable to specific properties or of any intention to purchase a specific property: [32] - [34]In this case, there was no intention to create a trust: [36], [41], [48], [54]That's because: the creation of a JV vehicle did not prove a trust creation intention [49], the potential of co-mingled funds absent a “trust account” points away from a trust [50], absence of language like “solely” or “exclusively” [51], and the parties treated the funds as loaned rather than held in trust [53]The Court then considered IF there was a trust, was it brought to an end by the loan agreement: [55]The Court held the loan extinguished the trust rights (if any) because (i) the loan came after and was inconsistent with a trust, (ii) the loan showed the parties abandoning the earlier agreement, and (iii) the loan's operation saw existing rights surrendered in exchange for additional terms secured under the loan: [65]The Court then considered the position if (a) there was a trust, and (b) that trust survived the loan: [68]Even if both criteria were met, the Court found no basis to order recovery against the DCos: [69] - [109]P's claim failed. Costs followed the event: [110]___Please follow James d'Apice, Gravamen, and Coffee and a Case Note on your favourite platform!www.gravamen.com.au

At just 25 years old, one of our clients, has built an impressive portfolio of 17 properties. With a goal to hit 30 by the end of the year, he joins Nathan to break down exactly how he did it, the lessons he learned, and what's next. If you think age or circumstances are holding you back, this episode will prove otherwise. Tune in for real insights, straight talk, and no BS. Show Notes 00:00 - Bought my first property at 18  03:10 - Started a business during covid 06:31 - How much of a difference does a rent increase make? 09:11 - Living below your means 13:40 - How do you present yourself best to the bank? 17:39 - How much did you have for your first deposit? 20:28 - Do you have a favourite property? 21:01 - Have you had any hurdles? 23:47 - Was buying the 10th property easier than the 1st? 26:03 - "I've never seen one of my properties in person" 30:27 - Having the right team around you with the same vision 34:50 - "You're the only client who wants to pay as much tax as he can" 36:52 - Surround yourself with like minded people 39:55 - "I bought myself retirement from that one deal" 42:20 - The goal is to have 30 properties by the end of the year 46:20 - Tips for new investors   Make your move on your property journey today: https://binvested.com.au/contact-us/ What are your thoughts on this video? Share them below and show us some love if you found this video useful.

FEAR is costing you WEALTH! Are you letting fear hold you back from investing? The fear of the unknown keeps people stuck, while holding cash might be your biggest mistake.  Many are trapped in the working illusion, selling their lives to a job instead of using money as a tool to expand and grow.  Educate yourself, take action, and don't let fear keep you from financial freedom. If you need help, we've got you covered.  Show Notes 01: 05 -The Illusion of the 40-Year Career 04:39 - The Mathematics of Wealth Building 07:01 - The Mindset Shift – What's Holding You Back? 09:46 - Taking Action & Overcoming Fear 13:20 – Your property is working harder than you  17:35 - Like a child tasting sugar for the first time 22:04 - Handling Tenant and Property Issues 24:57 - Financial Systems and the Debt-Based Economy 27:24 - The Media Narrative on Property Investors 32:59 - Alternative Investment Strategies While Waiting for Residency Make your move on your property journey today: https://binvested.com.au/contact-us/ What are your thoughts on this video? Share them below and show us some love if you found this video useful.

Interest rates, market booms, crashes—there's always hype, but what's the reality? Nathan breaks down the uncertainty in the property market, what the media says, and how it all impacts buyer decisions. Tune in to the episode and get the real insights!

Thinking about property investment but not sure where to start? This episode is your playbook! Listen to James, one of our passionate clients, as he shares his journey—why he chose property over shares, how he renovated on a budget, and his approach to debt. Get real insights on investment wins, renovation strategies, and building wealth through smart moves. Don't miss his tips for 2025! Show Notes 00:00 - Why did you buy property over something like shares? 03:04 - The concept is proven 06:39 - We got higher rents than quoted 09:14 - How much were your properties? 15:27 - Tips for someone starting in 2025 20:20 - How did you renovate for $10K? 27:08 - Sweat equity vs hiring trades 31:17 - What's your relationship with debt? 35:47 - Renovation tips 47:28 - Future plans Make your move on your property journey today: https://binvested.com.au/contact-us/ What are your thoughts on this video? Share them below and show us some love if you found this video useful.

“Repay that tax refund into the trust!”___P was a Unit TeeCo incorporated by D1. D3 (whose sole dir and s/holder was D1) was the sole unitholder. D2 was D1's spouse: [1] - [3]D1 incorporated P to buy a valuable piece of land (“Property”). P borrowed the funds from Lender for that: [4]After completion, D1 caused P to lodge a BAS. The resultant refund of ~$2.6m was paid to P: [5]P sued seeking repayment: [8], [10]The Ds said $1.1m of it was a “Success/Performance Fee” for D1 and $1.5m was a “Management/Performance Fee” for D1: [13]D1 was an experienced property developer whose usual practice was to incorporate SPVs (similarly to P) to exploit development opportunities: [14] - [16]Typically, as with P, the SPVs would have no funds of their own and would get third party finance: [17]Sometimes, as with P, D1 would not create a new bank account for a new SPV and would instead use D1's own: [16], [36]In around 2022 D1 identified the Property and began speaking to the Lender: [22] - [24]A loan agreement followed and in 2023 the purchase of the Property for ~$30m completed: [25] - [30], [61]After completion the Lender realised any profit calculations were absent GST tax refunds: [59]In October 2023 the ~$2.6m GST refund was paid into D1's account (remembering P did not have its own account): [64]Shortly after, $9m (which included the ~$2.6m) was transferred from D1's account to the D1/D2 joint account: [66], [67]These funds were then applied to buy a $22m Bronte property in D2's name: [69] - [71]The Lender chased D1 in relation to the GST refund position. D1 was evasive; at time dishonestly so: [72] - [83]The Lender appointed receiver managers demanding repayment of the BAS Refund to P. D1 did not comply: [87]The parties agreed D1 held the BAS Refund on trust for P: [89]D1 said the BAS Refund was then paid to D1 as fees “determined” by D1 as sole dir of P; but not pursuant to any written or oral agreement: [93]There was no evidence of an invoice, agreement, accounting entry etc. describing a fee to be paid to D1. Nor was there evidence for two types of fee: [97] - [100]There was written contemporaneous evidence against D1's case seeing D1: (i) declaring there were no related party transactions [112] and failing to declare the purported fees in the relevant BAS: [114]The only evidence supporting the Ds' view was D1's affidavit. D1's credibility was damaged by D1's dishonesty in dealing with Lender regarding the BAS Refund: [115] - [118]The Ds failed to establish a basis for fees, those transfers therefore being a breach of trust and of DDs: [119], [120], [155]Separate claims against D2 and D3 were not successful: [145], [148]The question of costs had complexity (P's success against D1, and failure against D2 and D3) and was saved for another day: [156], [157]___If you have made it this far please consider following James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and my firm Gravamen on your favourite platform!www.gravamen.com.au

Bad habits don't just hold you back, they shape your entire future. In this episode, Nathan breaks down how to identify and change the habits that are keeping you stuck, from mindset blocks to daily decisions. It's time to take control of your habits and your future. Tune in now! Show Notes: 05:07 - Habits can be broken 05:07 - I used to smoke cigarettes 07:55 -  The biggest bad habits are the ones inside your mind 09:42 -  "I don't have time" 12:34 - If you're not happy with something, change it 14:51 - If your 4 best friends are broke, you're going to be the 5th one 16:55  - You can get something, but keeping it is a separate thing 19:19 - Death by a thousand cuts 22:02 - Bad habits lead to bad outcomes 24:38 - What can you change? Make your move on your property journey today: https://binvested.com.au/contact-us/ What are your thoughts on this video? Share them below and show us some love if you found this video useful.

Health & wealth go hand in hand, too many chases money but forget their well-being.  Nathan Birch & Michael Pritchatt dive into real-life strategies, mindset shifts & long-term success in health & wealth. This episode unpacks consistency, strategy & networking, why success isn't linear, how small wins add up, and why mindset is everything.  Tune in Now and Learn from experts! Show Notes: 01:16 – Michael's Background - Scaling to 17 Properties in Two Years. 10:05 – Real-Life Experience 15:50 – Everyone is Different 22:49 – Upcoming Event – February 28th 24:55 – The Importance of Strategy & Clarity 29:21 – Mindset & Self-Talk for Success 31:01 – The Power of Networking 41:38 – Parental Influence & Breaking Generational Cycles 50:25 – Mindset Determines Success in Property & Life 54:45 – Access to Information vs. Taking Action  01:00:34 – Tracking & Refining for Maximum Results 01:03:36 – Early Knowledge is Game-Changing 01:08:01 – Filtering Advice Based on Source 01:12:21 – The Leap into Business & Property Make your move on your property journey today: https://binvested.com.au/contact-us/ What are your thoughts on this video? Share them below and show us some love if you found this video useful.

Send Vlad a Text MessageVlad flies to the home of Hip Hop, crack and hotdog stands, talks about the state of NYC, gets stoned by the weed in the air, travels to New Jersey for the Tony Robbins event, gives $600 to homeless people (via his Mrs Pty Ltd) and realises Life's A Joke. Song: NY State of Mind Pt.II by Nas Support the Supporters that Support the PodcastNEW SPONSOR ALERT! DNA DISTILLERY (AWARD WINNING RAKIJA)Award winning Rakija company with immaculate celebratory beverages. Check out the entire range on the below websites, order a tasting pack or some of their flagship, amazing rakija today! https://www.dnadistillery.comROYAL STACKS! (IMMACULATE BURGERS)Melbournes Greatest Burgers! Royal Stacks is a booming burger chain in Victoria with classic burgers, shakes and more, with a 90s vibe and high quality food! https://www.royalstacks.com.auMETROPOLITAN STONE (Kitchens, Cabinets, Laundry, All Cabinets)We have a combined 30 years experience in the cabinet making industry in Victoria! Everything from small projects to large projects!Benchtop change overs, Kitchen facilities, Kitchens, Laundries, Bathroom cabinets, T.v units, Wardrobes etc!MENTION: VLADContact: MATT 0425797488Matthew@metropolitanstone.com.auhttp://www.metropolitanstone.com.auORANGE LEGAL GROUP (Specialising in Property law for purchasing and selling, conveyancing, in-house Mortgage broker & Chartered Account! One stop shop for ALL property needs! Wrap! FREE Contract reviews for buyers before purchasing property!Mention VLAD!https://www.orangelegalgroup.com.auEmail: property@orangelegalgroup.com.auContact: mycousinvlad@gmail.comhttp://www.instagram.com/mycousinvladSupport the showBE GOODDO GOODGET GOOD

“Hey! You can't transfer your shopping centre stake to them!” ____ Two contracts governed the relationship between co-owners of a large, suburban shopping centre: [1] In 2012 the co-owners were P as to 50%, and two other entities in the same group for 25% each: [2] The arrangement contained rights regarding share transfers; the breach of which allowed the non-breaching party to automatically buyout the breaching party's stake: [5] In 2014, after some compliant share transfers, the ownership structure became 50/50: [7], [8] In 2022, following a restructure of middling complexity (to this humble litigator!), P's co-owner transferred its shares to another entity in that group: [10], [25] - [34] Crucially the transferee (who was one of the Ds) did not fall within the relevant definition “Related Corporation”: [35] P said this transfer was a breach and triggered P's rights to buy their co-owners out of the property: [11] The operation of the clauses dealing with transfers of interests were considered closely: [13] - [24] P and the Ds exchanged (chiefly by emails between their solicitors) corro with the Ps asserting the transfer was a Prohibited Disposal (as defined) and pressing for a sale at $830m: [40] - [54] The sale did not proceed. P commenced proceedings: [55] The Ds resisted, including on the basis of the operation of technical parts of the documents, the structure of the transactions, and the service requirements in relation to the relevant notices: [61] The Court briefly restated the principles that applied to commercial contractual construction; congruence, the avoidance of commercial inconvenience, avoiding a capricious outcome etc: [70] The Court found that the a co-owner performing a Prohibited Disposal, and thereby being in default, exposed the entirety of its interest (and not merely, say, a severable proportion) to being bought out: [95] Regarding notice, notice in writing including email was sufficient - with no additional formal or ceremonial requirement: [103], [106] From the time the Ds received the notice from their lawyers, compliant notice was provided to the Ds: [109] Further in relation to the notice question, the Court found that an estoppel contended for by P did not arise whereby giving notice to the Ds' lawyers was sufficient to comply with the contract was not made out: [115], [116] (However, as mentioned, relevant notice requirements were complied with.) The Court found P was entitled to specific performance of the contract for P's purchase of the relevant D's interest in the shopping centre: [117] ___ Please follow James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and Gravamen on your favourite platform! www.gravamen.com.au

Choosing the right trade-based business structure is crucial for every Aussie trades person aiming to succeed in 2025. In this episode, we cover the ins and outs of starting as a sole trader, partnership, PTY LTD company, or trust. Learn how each structure affects taxes, liability, and the ease of expanding your business. If you're considering starting or restructuring your trade-based business, this guide will equip you with the knowledge to protect your assets and grow your venture effectively.Watch the video version of this podcast at https://youtu.be/8CDuj469fMYDiscussion Points: 00:00 Simplify content for universal understanding and communication.05:58 Easy entry, tax advantages, but unlimited liability.07:05 Start with unlimited liability; consider partnership later.12:10 Start honest talks early to avoid conflicts.13:34 Friends in business risk ruined friendships.18:20 Understand taxing implications of company withdrawals.20:14 Transitioning to new ABN requires extensive administrative work.25:42 Loss treatment differs for business structures.28:39 Trust benefits adult beneficiaries with low taxes.31:41 Confusing tax savings with cash savings explained.33:53 Consider restructuring after 130,000 profit threshold.37:07 Separate entities protect assets through strategic division.39:22 Understand write-offs to avoid being scammed.Resources:Visit Retinue's website at www.retinue.com.com.auGet in touch with David at david.rosenthal@retinue.com.au Welcome back to The Site Shed Podcast! If you're in the trades and wondering how to integrate AI into your business, Tradie Hub has you covered. Discover innovative ways to reduce labour costs, increase efficiency, and leverage AI for growth. Check out Tradie Hub at tradiehub.net and see how they're transforming the trade industry with cutting-edge AI solutions! Don't let your business fall behind—explore the power of AI with Tradie Hub. Visit tradiehub.net to see the innovative AI tools crafted just for tradies. Discover how you can stay ahead and transform your business with cutting-edge technology! Enjoyed the podcast? Take your trade business to the next level by incorporating AI! Don't get left behind—explore Tradie Hub at tradiehub.net. Discover game-changing AI solutions designed to boost efficiency and growth for trade businesses worldwide. Check it out today! Check this out: Guarantee 30 Qualified Project Quotes Over The Next 90 Days! Learn more here: https://tradie.wiki/pod Learn more about the CRM that DOES IT ALL for your trade business! Just click on this link: https://tradiehub.net Join a global community of 6000+ trade professionals https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheSiteShed Connect with me on LinkedIn. For more podcast episodes, you can also visit our website. Thank you for tuning in! If you enjoyed this podcast and this series, please take 5 to leave us a review: Google Facebook Podcast

"Is it the tree that's held in trust, or just the fruit?" ___ The Ps came to Court arguing that one D - a trustee, DTee - held shares in the other D, a Co, on trust for the Ps: [1], [3], [4] The Ps further sough for the shares be transferred to the Ps: [2]The Co's defence essentially put the Ps to proof - a “non admission”: [5] DTee took a more expansive approach: [5] - [8] After particulars of its defence were sought, DTee asserted that if the Ps were benefs of a trust including shares in the Co, the Ps were entitled only to the “benefit” of those shares (e.g. dividends and franking credits) rather than the shares themselves: [9], [14], [15] The assets underpinning the structure related to property development: [10] Evidence suggested the Ps had made some financial contribution, despite opacity as to the structure of the transaction: [11] In 2023, the parties entered into Declarations of Trust: [20] DTee pointed to evidence suggesting that a unit trust was contemplated by the parties abrogating the need for trust decs. The Court found that even if the trust decs were illogical or unnecessary, they bound the parties and would need to be considered: [18] Dividend statements suggesting dividends and franking credits passed to the Ps were referred to, absent an explanation as to how this was possible noting the Ps were not shareholders: [19] The trust decs and the Co's conduct were consistent with the shares, and not merely the “benefit” of the shares, being held on trust for the Ps: [21] - [23] That is: the corpus of the trust included the tree, and not merely the fruit of the tree: [20] The Ps said the trust decs unambiguously referred to the shares, and now called for their transfer whether pursuant to Saunders v Vautier or the terms of the decs themselves: [25], [26] After considering the application principles of construction, the Court founds the trust decs were clear and that (i) they extend to a trust over the shares themselves (not merely the “benefit” of them); and (ii) create a covenant to transfer the shares on demand: [29] DTee queried whether the corpus of the trust was sufficiently certain, noting DTee held a “pool” of shares and that none of the shares in the pool could be attributed precisely to an individual P: [30], [34] The Court disagreed, finding that a beneficiary could have a beneficial interest in a specified number of a larger parcel of shares: [31] - [34] Having so found, the Court considered orders transferring the shares back to the Ps (whether pursuant to Saunders v Vautier or the terms of the trust decs) were appropriate: [35] ___ Please follow James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and Gravamen on your favourite platform! www.gravamen.com.au

Part 2 of our revisited series. The guys are chatting Companies. Do you have Pty Ltd then this is for you.

CPC Patent Technologies PTY Ltd. v. Apple Inc.

“We need to *wind up* the trust and sell the farms!” ___ The Ps and the Ds each owned 50% of the units in a unit trust: [1] TCo owned substantial real property - farms. The Ps sought to have the trust ended and distribute the assets. The Ds took the opposite view: [5] The Ps said: 1. there was an agreement or estoppel that if one party wanted to exit, the assets would be sold; 2. the trust deed allowed a unit holder to terminate; 3. the TCo's conduct was oppressive; and 4. a receiver should be appointed to trust assets: [7] The Ps and Ds were bankers who, after a time, resolved to add valuable farmland to their portfolio: [15] - [18] They sought advice on structuring: [19] - [30] TCo was incorporated and established as trustee, with Ps and Ds funding TCo's purchase of the land: [31], [32] A unit holders agreement was considered but not signed: [33] - [36] Once commenced, the parties considered: which farm management services Co was best, the possible acquisition of further properties by TCo, the Ds frustration with the Ps' acquisition of a farm themselves and not for TCo, and the looming threat of drought: [39] - [53] As the drought intensified, arguments arose about: (i) whether to de-stock or borrow to buy feed: [54] - [65], (ii) the Ps stretching their finances to make their own acquisitions thereby depriving TCo of a source of funds to buy land, and (iii) the Ps standing in the way of the Ds buying some land for themselves: [54] - [72] The relationship deteriorated.In 2021 and 2022 the Ps put purchase offers to the Ds. The Ds accepted neither: [87] - [89] Later in 2022, the Ps served a notice purporting to “wind up” the trust: [90] Re 1., the Ps said there was an agreement, or representations founding an estoppel, that each party could unilaterally terminate the JV on notice: [107], [109] The Court found no evidence of a “one out / all out” arrangement: [122] Re 2., the unit holders has a present entitlement to trust capital; a position adopted for land tax purposes: [126], [136] The Ps failed on this point; incl because the Deed did not give rise to a present entitlement for *each unit holder separately* rather than the unit holders together: [168], [184] Re 3., the Court accepted oppression can occur with a trustee Co, with the relevant member protecting their family's beneficiary interest: [202] - [204] None of the pleaded oppression bases was made out: [209] - [255] Ps' complaints arose from disagreements re management of the farms through drought, and the lack of an exit strategy - neither proved commercial unfairness: [256] - [258] Re 4., the trust property was not in jeopardy and TCo appeared to be performing satisfactorily: [266] The Court was not moved by the Ps' analogies to partnerships or s461 applications, leaving no basis for the appointment of a receiver: [267] - [283] The Ps' application was dismissed: [286] __ Please give James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and James' firm Gravamen a follow on your favourite platform! www.gravamen.com.au

“Some of these debts are trivial… do I still have to pay the really small ones?” ___ 2,653 clients deposited money with a Co, who was a trustee. Only 74 of those beneficiary clients had a balance worth over $100: [2], [3] A liquidator, P, was appointed to the Co: [1] P approached the Court seeking advice as to whether (i) the benefs with a

“Bring the company back from the dead so we can go to Court!” ___ P approached the Court to seek the reinstatement of a deregistered Co: [1] In 2010 the Co was incorporated. Shortly afterwards P and D1 - who were siblings - were the 2 Dirs and 2 equal shareholders: [4], [5] P said that at about this time P and D1 agreed the Co would purchase some property, each funding 50% of the purchase, each owning a 50% share, and each entitled to 50% of the rent. The property was tenanted by D1: [7] Shortly after this, the Co became the registered proprietor of the property: [8] In 2012 (leaving aside the parties' confusion as to whether the Co was a trustee) forms were lodged with ASIC recording P's retirement as director. (P could not recall consenting or not.) From this time D1 managed the property for the Co: [9], [10] In 2021 terse emails were exchanged between P and D1. P sought information. D threatened to “transfer out” some of the Co's assets: [11] In 2022 the Co transferred the property to OtherCo with nil consideration recorded on the transfer. OtherCo's directors and shareholders were D1 and their spouse: [12], [13] Shortly after, in 2022, D1 paid to P half the purported net proceeds of a sale of the property which D1 said was sold for $1.7m: [14], [15] Some evidence showed that in August 2021 D1 had emailed P a valuation for the property at ~$2.4m and then attempted to recall that email; re-sending it with a valuation of $1.7m to $2.0m: [16] In August 2022 D1 caused the de-registration of the Co, with P alleging P had no knowledge of D1 doing so: [17], [18] P alleged the Co ought to have received around $1.6m in rental income over the period the Co owned the property. P said P had seen only $91K of this: [19] All Ds consented to the Co's reinstatement pursuant to s601AH: [20], [21] The Court considered the relevant principles relating to an application brought by a “person aggrieved” by reregistration: [23], [24] Where reinstatement is sought to bring legal proceedings, the Court need not forensically scrutinise the claim. There must be “some level of arguability” by the threshold is “very low”: [26] P said they met this threshold as the Co's deregistration prevented both an oppression claim and a derivative suit against D1 in the name of the Co: [28] The Court agreed: [29] In the normal course, D1 would be Dir upon reinstatement. D1 agreed to immediately retire on reinstatement: [31] The parties consented to P and P's nephew being appointed Dirs on reinstatement: [33] - [35] The Co was reinstated, P and nephew were appointed Dirs, and the costs of the application were reserved to the contemplated oppression and / or derivative action proceedings: [39] ___ Please following James d'Apice and his firm Gravamen on your favourite platform! www.gravamen.com.au

https://shippingpodcast.com/245-alison-cusack-principal-lawyer-cusack-co-pty-ltd/The Australian General Average Nerd   Alison Cusack, Principal Lawyer at Cusack & Co Pty Ltd in Melbourne, is an expert on General Average. If you have never understood the principles of the General Average, this episode is for you! In addition, there is no aspect of the maritime industry we don't touch upon in our conversation. #everyconversationmatters  What do you think about the concept of "Sea Embassy" as a way to solve the entire autonomous ship issue? Do you think that's a way forward?  Episode 245 is so packed with info and new ideas! A shout-out to us: please drop a line to hello@shippingpodcast.com, and don't forget to subscribe to Alison's brand new podcast  The Shipping Lawyer if you want to hear more from her.  Thanks for listening! 

“You changed the business I sold you so you could underpay me!” ___ By deed P sold their shares in an online retail business to D.P was to receive $20M, some shares in D, and the Earn Out Amount (“EOM”): [3] According to the deed, the EOM was the Base EOM of $10M plus the Additional EOM: [6] The Additional EOM was the rounded difference between the Base EOM (I.e. $10M) and “Earnings”: [7] “Earnings” meant EBITDA over the relevant year. The deed contained a mechanism for D send a proposed Earnings calculation (as part of a P and L), for P to make a reply including setting out “Contested Matters”, for the parties to negotiate the contested matters in good faith, and for the matter to be referred to an expert if negotiations failed: [10] - [14] D sent a P and L suggesting Earnings were ~$6M (making the Additional EOM zero): [16] P sent a reply calculating Earnings at ~$15M (taking the Additional EOM to its maximum possible figure) and raising Contested Matters: [17] Following unsuccessful good faith negotiations, the matter was referred to an expert: [18] How was the expert to calculate Earnings?: [19] Cll 2.1 and 2.2 of the deed required Earnings to be calc'd disregarding revenues or expenses not part of the Co's ordinary business including: costs relating to the share sale, restructure costs, certain related party transactions, and the costs of kicking off any new business: [21] Cl 2.3 of the deed noted the parties' agreement that Earnings were to be calc'd as if the Co's business were run the same way post-purchase as it had been pre-purchase; and that D would not make big changes to the Co's business (or, if D did make big changes, the EOM would be normalised to exclude those changes' impact): [21] P sued, seeking declarations that the expert determine Earnings in accordance with all of the above. D resisted: [25] - [27] The Court found for the P: [28] The well-known principles regarding contractual interpretation were (respectfully) helpfully restated at [29] - [33] The Court noted the parties' explicit agreement on the mandatory language in Cl 2.3; that Earnings *must* be calculated that way: [48] - [50] The proper construction was found to be on that basis: [54] P's pressed for their Contested Matters to be referred to the expert.P said Earnings had to be adjusted due to D failing to implement a new website, leading to lower website traffic. The Court accepted this Contested Matter was appropriately dealt with by the expert: [63] - [77] Similarly: P's complaint regarding D's failure to implement P's logistics proposal was to be properly dealt with by the expert: [78] - [82] Again similarly: P's complaint that D's marketing efforts wrongly focussed on conversion rather than branding was properly dealt with by the expert: [83] - [86] The expert was required to value Earnings as P proposed, and to deal with P's Contested Matters: [87] ___ Please head to www.gravamen.com.au - that's my law firm!

In today's episode Glen chats with Eleanor from Townsville who shares how she's navigated her money, career and life through a relationship breakdown and reconciliation. Thank you Eleanor for sharing your story so openly!Thanks to Skye Wealth for supporting our Thursday show! Connect with the team hereWe hate email spam so we don't create it! Sign up to our newsletter to get only the valuable money, careers and property info you need.To get help, and to check out our online courses, books, resources and downloads (+ our disclaimers and warnings), click here.Any advice is general financial advice only which does not take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. Because of that, you should consider if the advice is appropriate to you and your needs, before acting on the information. If you do choose to buy a financial product read the product disclosure statement (PDS) and target market determination (TMD) and obtain appropriate financial advice tailored to your needs.SYMO interactive Pty Ltd trading as this is money & Glen James are authorised representatives of MoneySherpa Pty Ltd which holds financial services licence 451289. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's tax season and we're joined by an accountant to answer all your questions. Glen and special guest Bradley Taylor talk about:

Let's chat about the need-to-know facts around HELP debt as it stands right now. Glen covers:

In today's episode Glen and John chat about investing in your health, relationships, career, shares, property and business plus their thoughts, tips and learnings for each.Pre-Order

Being at the top of your game is one thing, but staying at the top is another! In today's episode Glen chats with performance dietician and high performance coach Jess Spendlove about some budget-conscious and powerful habits to adopt around your:

Glen and John discuss last night's Federal Budget announcement in this bonus episode. Any advice is general financial advice only which does not take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. Because of that, you should consider if the advice is appropriate to you and your needs, before acting on the information. If you do choose to buy a financial product read the product disclosure statement (PDS) and target market determination (TMD) and obtain appropriate financial advice tailored to your needs.SYMO interactive Pty Ltd trading as this is money & Glen James are authorised representatives of MoneySherpa Pty Ltd which holds financial services licence 451289. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In today's live episode recorded with our listeners in Townsville, Glen and John chat about:

Last year, Australians lost more than $201.1 million to romance scams according to the National Anti-Scam Centre. Tracy Hall's relationship is one of the more well known ones, made famous by the hit podcast Who the Hell is Hamish? In one of our wildest episodes ever on this is money, Tracy shares how she was swindled out of $317,000 in life savings by one of Australia's most prolific con men, her journey to rebuilding financially and emotionally and how to protect yourself from a romance scam. Tracy has just released her new book, The Last Victim which shares the full story of what happened which you can find via the links below.

Today's Q&A is for the Aussie expats or anyone thinking of living overseas! Financial adviser James Ridley joins Glen on the show to discuss your questions around:

In this bonus episode, Glen opens up about his journey in discovering he may have ADHD and recently getting diagnosed. He shares candidly about some of the silly money mistakes he's made and the financial guardrails he's put in place to manage his spendy impulses.We hate email spam so we don't create it! Sign up to our newsletter to get only the valuable money, careers and property info you need.To get help, and to check out our online courses, books, resources and downloads (+ our disclaimers and warnings), click here.Any advice is general financial advice only which does not take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. Because of that, you should consider if the advice is appropriate to you and your needs, before acting on the information. If you do choose to buy a financial product read the product disclosure statement (PDS) and target market determination (TMD) and obtain appropriate financial advice tailored to your needs.SYMO interactive Pty Ltd trading as this is money & Glen James are authorised representatives of MoneySherpa Pty Ltd which holds financial services licence 451289. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On today's episode we're joined by psychologist Johanna Badenhorst to explain the nuances of doing life and managing money with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). Glen and Johanna discuss:

In today's Q&A, Glen and Rebecca Pritchard discuss:

After 6 years as my millennial money, we've rebranded to this is money! Today we chat about the creation of our fresh look and name with special guests Shell from this is work and branding expert Jason Knight.Our brand was designed by Ask Jason Knight. To learn how he made our brand, click here: https://bit.ly/TIMrebranddocThanks to Skye Wealth for supporting our Thursday show! Connect with the team hereWe hate email spam so we don't create it! Sign up to our newsletter to get only the valuable money, careers and property info you need.To get help, and to check out our online courses, books, resources and downloads (+ our disclaimers and warnings), click here.Any advice is general financial advice only which does not take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. Because of that, you should consider if the advice is appropriate to you and your needs, before acting on the information. If you do choose to buy a financial product read the product disclosure statement (PDS) and target market determination (TMD) and obtain appropriate financial advice tailored to your needs.SYMO interactive Pty Ltd trading as this is money & Glen James are authorised representatives of MoneySherpa Pty Ltd which holds financial services licence 451289. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In today's Q&A Glen & John answer your questions about:

In today's my money story episode Glen chats with long time listener, Catherine. Catherine touches on her property and work goals, how she manages money with her partner and balancing the spender/saver dynamic as well as how she's learning to navigate her tricky relationship with money which she describes as "a really annoying friend that she likes to keep at a distance".Our new podcast Retire Right is now live! How to subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNDhMT2WJE4Thanks to Skye Wealth for supporting our Thursday show! Connect with the team hereWe hate email spam so we don't create it! Sign up to our newsletter to get only the valuable money, careers and property info you need.To get help, and to check out our online courses, books, resources and downloads (+ our disclaimers and warnings), click here.Any advice is general financial advice only which does not take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. Because of that, you should consider if the advice is appropriate to you and your needs, before acting on the information. If you do choose to buy a financial product read the product disclosure statement (PDS) and target market determination (TMD) and obtain appropriate financial advice tailored to your needs.SYMO interactive Pty Ltd trading as this is money & Glen James are authorised representatives of MoneySherpa Pty Ltd which holds financial services licence 451289. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In today's Q&A Glen and Financially Fierce host, Jess Brady chat about:

In today's episode Glen chats with small business owners Dave & Jazz who co-founded Surfolk during the height of covid lockdowns in 2021. The duo share the inspiration behind the brand, how they got started, their ideas for growing the biz and where to from here.Check out Surfolk

In this 2nd part to our 2-part episode series around F.I.R.E (financial independence, retire early), Glen is joined by financial adviser Jess Brady and best-selling author Tim Duggan. Tim shares research that points to how many of us are overworked, disengaged and apprehensive about the future and how we can take advantage of a once-in-a-generations opportunity to rethink how and why we work. If you loved this chat check out Tim's book

In today's episode Glen goes on a 1.5 hour rant about F.I.R.E. (financial independence, retire early) - think of it as his manifesto. Listen at your own risk :)Thanks to Sphere Home Loans for supporting the Tuesday show! Need a mortgage broker? Connect with the team hereBook club