How long had Bumper Action Amusements in all its forms been around?
I know they were around in the 1970's but not sure how long before then.

WG you are confusing liquidating a company with closing a business. Only the former happened, the latter has not.

Were Bumper a strong competitor to you last week or over the last several months? Unlikely, with all the issues they had to deal with including a difficult landlord who sounds like he has a screw loose.

Were Bumper your competitors before that? Yes, as both you and they trade pinball parts and machines - but there are points of difference between you.

A) You have been trying to become a manufacturer and had some hiccups, shall we say - Bumper did not try manufacturing.

B) Bumper have an agreement with an innovative pinball manufacturer, you do not.

I'm just reporting the facts...

Are Bumper a hot competitor this week? No.

Next month? Hopefully this is where it will get interesting.

I have to admit I admire Bumper's tenacity and ambition. I also admit to liking the fact that they have been playing a clean game and have not tried to mask their difficulties, nor point finger at others who have/had problems.

You said at the beginning of this thread that you were just reporting "fact".

The liabilities could be greater or lesser that what you suspect. FACT is, the liabilities will not be known for several weeks.

I recommend you change the title of the thread to be more FACTUAL "Former owners of Bumper Action Amusements Pty Ltd liquidate a disused company".

Some one just get me a woz.........or anyone got a good pin for sale in OZ

It does not say former in the link provided. The link is there for people to see and make their own decision from that.

It seems like you are speculating about the assets as well. What is the difference?

_{Post edited by absocountry2 : spelling error - hate autocorrect}

Assists? Sorry absocountry2 do you mean assets?

Just ask for a refund and see how quick you get your money.
You don't need to liquidate a disused company, you just stop trading under that name.
I don't see how a director of a company can go into liquidation and then buy the asset back and start up fresh. Something is just wrong with this picture.
Like I said I feel for anyone who is mixed up in this mess.

I am putting it out there and asking.

Noodlebox, you sure sound like Rob Farrell, former GM of the now defunct BA and new owner of the Phoenix company - the reborn BA.

Tell me I'm wrong.

WG you have finally found out for yourself what Bumper Amusements the new company have been saying, that the WOZ programme continues with the new company and the new owner. That is the only reason why the liquidator has not heard of JJ or WOZ because they were no longer part of the old company when it ceased to operate. The new Bumper will hold all the rights, deposited moneys and agreements with JJ.

What's so unclear about that?

You are however still confused about the directors. Bumper (new management) said that the former GM has now bought the business in his own right.

What the directors of the old company do with the old company is therefore nothing to do with the new owner, they remain as separate legal entities.

You would know that arlready, as the new owners of your old Bally rights and assets would attest that you and they operate separately today. Are you responsible for what they do with your old assets? Of course not.

WG I am not knocking you personally, I admire anyone who takes on a tough assignment like manufacturing product in a country with very high manufacturing and export costs to supply a declining industry, when most others have failed.

You are wrong.

I am a business and marketing consultant with 20 years experience helping struggling businesses and start ups. I also like supporting the underdog.

I appreciate the bloodhounding done by many so far to keep us up to date. Having read through this thread with interest, am I to conclude that the WOZ buyers from BUMPER ACTION AMUSEMENTS PTY LTD have likely lost their money?

In spite of assurances above from some posters, I don't see how the WOZ buyers are not screwed. Anytime a company closes to avoid paying debts it has legitamately run up, it means those specific creditors have lost big time. When the dust clears, WOZ buyers who paid will probably find this money was not put into a trust account. Each buyer was actually a creditor but on a small scale. They gave money to Bumper and have a credit against a future asset. There is little doubt in my mind that this money has been sucked out of that company by its Owner. That the company is accused of destroying the books indicates they did not provide the accounting books to its new administrator.

Fancy legal jumbo aside, I feel bad for these buyers.

I only have your word, just as the Bumper WoZ customers did.......

Noodle,

Also, when you say you "like supporting the underdog" you seriously aren't suggesting that Bumper are the underdogs?

Geez, Paulbozo (or is that David Maxton, the paulbozo handle was registered almost same day you lost your other login SMTM), please read things again - if you stop trading a business you lose income, run out of cash and become insolvent, this forces the company into liquidation at some time.

But sell the business first and you no longer need the company that contained it, so it still gets liquidated as it too has no income. The difference is the assets are protected, as they go within the business to the new (company) owner.

What doesn't get sold with the business, such as unwanted liabilities, these are liquidated when the company closes down. The argument tends to become one of ethics ie should you liquidate a business that owes tax to the Government. Before you answer that, think of any times you have taken cash and not paid tax, and tell me whether your illegal tax evasion is less of a crime than legal tax avoidance.

That said, there are provisions for deliberate large scale or serial Phoenix company activity to be unwound and directors held accountable. It's not common and it usually has only ever happened where the debt to Government is in the millions.

FWIW I have seen Phoenix companies in operation, they used to be rife in the IT industry as manufactured goods fell in price and distributors were left holding higher priced inventory. Phoenix companies tend not to move location, they just do a shabby legal quickstep and leave everything else the same.

I used to advise clients against the tactic, rather they should build a faster supply chain (difficult) or copy the Dell model and make to order. Over time they always destroyed their brand.

What I believe I see with Bumper is not a Phoenix side step, despite what former staff and competitors would say. It feels and reads more like a gigantic effort to eliminate ongoing blatant interference in the business (Del the landlord) and provide a fresh start for the new owner. Time will tell.

If that doesn't convince you think about this - Google maps and Streetview shows the new building as being larger than the old one and only one floor. That move just has to give better operational efficiency to the the business.

Moving gets rid of a pesky landlord and makes the business easier to run, hey why wouldn't you?

Nobody said the books were destroyed.

That was just one of several options on a published standard schedule of what any Administrator could do. I don't know why any administrator would do so unless they decided to rebuild the accounts and discard the old reports.

Ballypinball would have you think so. With so much idle speculation, misunderstanding of business liquidation and Administrator processes, and just outright dirty pool from competitors, how could Bumper not be an underdog? Can you name other pinball businesses in Australia who have had to endure this type of public attack recently?

Is this you Noodle???

»

Is this you Noodle???

Sorry, my mistake..... This is the sole director of a new pinball company.

Sprung! Not.

Seems like you have read their lease, or are you again relying on Del's word? Fatal.

And my experience with landlords, both for my clients' and my own business premises, the b****** never spend anything more unless they absolutely have to (read, threatened with withholding rent), they rate their own shabby buildings the equal of the best in the area and price accordingly, and they increase rent where property values increased as a result of your own improvements - unless you are a good negotiator.

Hey it's all just business, everyone likes to push the boundaries.

"A Bumpy Ride"

I once knew a man from another country who obtained a Visa to work here in Australia after being sponsored by a local company.

He did well for himself (but left a few bankrupt companies in his wake), so much so that he ended up owning his own company that he bought for a dollar as it was in so much trouble after only a year or so with him at the helm. He thought of himself as a sort of saviour for the company, a white knight so to speak. Alas, he forgot that his eligibility for the sponsorship and Australia's warm welcome (his working Visa) disappeared with the old company's demise.

I felt so sorry for him when he had to leave, but even more sorry for his customers to whom he owed a lot of money.

....and they all lived unhappily ever after.

The End

I've heard of this BB Wolfe. He had a hit song with "talk through my arse" and his new single is racing up the charts, it' called " liquidate your company".

????

The creditors' situation, again, will be resolved by the Administrator in due course. And again, if the WOZ records are not with the Administrator then they sit somewhere else, in this case the new Bumper have already put their hand up and said come and talk.

I'm surprised you do care about creditors not related to your own business, and are interested in machines you did not sell.

What did you do with creditors for your own projects that never eventuated? Should anyone else be taking you to task about that? Would you have a double standard and insist it is no-one else's business?

It becomes clear why you have been so derogatory of Bumper - you just wanted what they had. The disguise was yours, sir, and it has slipped.

Only Rob Farrell wanted what they had and he got it. The two former owners (I believe they were quite wealthy in their own right) have run for the hills!

All this being said what does this meen for pinball in Australia

Hey it's getting late here in Australia.... I am tired so I am going to bed.

I actually sleep well at night.

Hey Noodlebox,

I am really impressed with your understanding on the set up of a new business. Could you please provide me your contact details because when bumper liquidate their company soon(again) I would like to use you to buy it for a dollar.

I don't know how it works down under, but noodlebox's theory that a business can sell the assets and ditch the liabilities is definitely not how it works in the US. I certainly can't speak as to an Australian company bankruptcy, but I can state unequivocally that no company can incur debts (and take deposits) and see the any government make those creditors whole. In order to transfer the assets and ditch the liabilities, BK fraud must occur (at least in the US). Ethics mean jack shit. We are talking about law.

Clawbacks are common in the US when people try to pull this. Sell the company car for a dollar to a friend and the BK trustee can demand fair market value or take the car. All of these transactions must be detailed 18 months back in the US.

In the short term anyone that has a woz on order is poo fingered. In the long term not much but a story to chew the fat over.

Sure kaplan, only my fees are to be paid in advance as there are no guarantees you can make it work any better.

Wayne, Del wants to stiff you with a 20% rent increase and you think it's reasonable? Guys like Del only prosper because you let them get away with it. With Del's record, you still think a 20% lift is reasonable? Have you looked at other properties and compared the rates? Maybe you should.

Your items are not always the tenant's responsibility.

R&M in particular is not.

(The following is not legal advice.)

Retail Leases Act 2003 - SECT 52
Landlord's liability for repairs
52. Landlord's liability for repairs
(1) A retail premises lease is taken to provide as set out in this section.
(2) The landlord is responsible for maintaining in a condition consistent with
the condition of the premises when the retail premises lease was entered into-
(a) the structure of, ***and fixtures in***, the retail premises; and
(b) ***plant and equipment at the retail premises***; and
(c) the appliances, fittings and fixtures provided under the lease by the
landlord relating to the gas, electricity, water, drainage ***or other
services***.
(3) However, the landlord is not responsible for maintaining those things if-
(a) the need for the repair arises out of misuse by the tenant; or
(b) the tenant is entitled or required to remove the thing at the end of
the lease.

Repair (section 52)
• The landlord is under a specific obligation to repair. Urgent repairs are no longer capped at $5,000.

Retail Leases Act 2003 - SECT 50
Recovery of land tax

50. Recovery of land tax
(1) A provision of a retail premises lease is void to the extent that it makes
the tenant liable to pay an amount for tax for which the landlord or head
landlord is liable under the Land Tax Act 2005.

And so forth. As ac toilets electrical are not mandated to be paid by the tenant in the Act, then they are just more areas where the landlord will try to transfer costs to the tenant.

Negotiate them!

I guess noodle's purpose is to confuse WOZ depositors into not taking their deposits out of Bumper's directors' hides. By introducing nonsense confusion, it diffuses the anger and potential recourse/revenge activities. Nice move, noodlebox.

I agree with you, laws and ethics should be more closely aligned, but in company law in Australia they are not.

I would sell my body to science before I would wind up any of my companies owing creditors.

Sounds like Del has a dispute on his hands.

Noodlebox, let me ask a couple of simple questions:

Are you claiming that the WOZ liabilities are transferred to this phoenix company?

Are you claiming that the new phoenix company is obligated to make depositors whole?

Are you claiming that the government will make depositors whole?

Are you claiming that the new company will do anything for depositors (defacto creditors) in the old company?

What is your horse in this race? Please disclose your exact relationship to the parties we are discussing.

Buyers can do what they want. It is not me that has posted misleading innuendo. All of my comments are drawn from public record.

I think you overstate your age.

In commercial leases everything is negotiable. Retail lease law is there to protect the inexperienced Mums and Dads who often lease retail premises.

There is no phoenix company. A phoenix would have the same directors etc and the new Bumper does not. Bumper say they have taken over the WOZ agreements of the old Bumper. That should include liabilities, cash and various obligations and agreements otherwise why do it?

The new company should have no relationship with or obligations to other non-WOZ creditors that are still resting with the old Bumper.

I have already disclosed my position. I am not a salaried employee of old or new Bumper. The fact that I can reason and clarify various statements seems to make me different to many members here and therefore a target. Go ahead.

G'night all.

You didn't answer my question. I did not ask you what you "were not". I asked what your exact relationship is.

You have a very smooth way of making your non-points. You proceeded to not answer any of my questions while pretending you were answering them. Touche!

Answer this: Should WOZ depositors expect anything from the new Bumper?