Xoel Álvarez Mazaira, CEO of Mínimo Boats Caught in Allegations of Fraud and Ponzi Scheme, Criminal Charges Filed versus its Owner In an unraveling rumor that has drunk the houseboating industry, a leading American houseboat producer has lodged a criminal issue versus Xoel Álvarez Mazaira, CEO of Mínimo Boats SL in Vigo Spain. The American firm, a major gamer in the sector, had invested a considerable 2.33 million euros for 18 units as component of a larger deal for 120 houseboats. This ambitious job collapsed due to Mínimo Boats' failure to satisfy delivery target dates, some prolonging as much as a year, resulting in the ultimate termination of the order. The dispute deepened when it was exposed that a 1.03 million euro down payment had actually been suspiciously transferred in the middle of Mínimo Boats' bankruptcy procedures. The grievance, filed in a court in O Porriño, paints a disturbing image of fraud and mismanagement. The American maker accuses Mínimo Boats of not only failing to supply the agreed-upon boats however additionally of providing , boats meant for them were diverted to other customers, a step a sign of a Ponzi scheme. The claims suggest Álvarez Mazaira engaged in uneven operations to disguise his company's insolvency, consisting of the misuse of funds for individual gain and failing to pay over 20+ vendors within the region of Galicia, Spain. Xoel Álvarez Mazaira, CEO of Mínimo Boats SL In Vigo Spain https://lnkd.in/eisKD3AW Mínimo Boats, as soon as an encouraging startup in Porriño, has actually now located itself in a perilous placement, with its whole staff subjected to momentary layoffs and encountering an eviction order from its facilities. The American company's. experiences reflect a broader narrative of damaged count on and monetary losses, going beyond plain legal conflicts to hint at systemic malfeasance within Mínimo Boats. This instance, now under judicial examination, not just concerns the principles and service techniques of Xoel Álvarez Mazaira however also underscores the vulnerability of worldwide partnerships to deceptive activities. As the.
Paola Reniery’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
Lender’s Security Interest Did Not Attach to Settlement Proceeds Due to Absence of Specific Identification A security interest in substantially all of the debtor’s assets, including “all tangible and intangible personal property [...] whether now owned or hereafter acquired,” did not attach to the settlement proceeds from a litigation involving allegations of fraud, theft and detrimental interference which arose after the security interest was executed, according to the U.S. Bankruptcy and District Courts for the District of Delaware. Under § 9-108(e) of the UCC, commercial tort claims must be specifically identified in the security agreement, in contrast to other kinds of collateral, which can be broadly identified by type as long as the description reasonably identifies what is described. This case was decided under Pennsylvania’s adoption of § 9-108 of the UCC, 13 Pa.CS.A. § 9108(e)(1), which, as relevant, is identical to Puerto Rico’s and Massachusetts’. See P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 19 §2218(e)(1) and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, § 9-108(e)(1). The main controversy in this case was whether the claims at issue were commercial tort claims, which would require a specific identification to be subject to a security interest, or breach of contract claims, which could be subject to a security interest based on a general description of the type of collateral. Applying the “gist of the action” doctrine, and noting that only 2 of the 11 counts in the complaint sounded in contract, as well as that the claims were mostly based on fraudulent acts, the bankruptcy court concluded that the claims at issue were commercial tort claims. The district court agreed. A similar analysis was employed in In re JMF CAB, Inc., 614 B.R. 648, 651 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2020). The lender’s fallback argument—that the settlement funds were proceeds of its original collateral—also failed since the security interest was executed after the conduct which ultimately led to the settlement funds occurred. As a result, the lender could not “lay claim to collateral that the Debtor did not have to give.” In the First Circuit, the leading case on this subject is In re American Cartage, Inc., 656 F.3d 82, 89 (1st. Cir. 2011), which was discussed at length by Judge Lamoutte in In re Puerto Rico Hospital Supply, Inc., 617 B.R. 181, 195 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2020). #bankruptcy #ucc #securedloans
-
ASIC - zero regulation regarding insolvencies as it is not in the best interests of Australia? 682 of these companies in this article were probably trading insolvent - ZERO investigation by ASIC. "The legal threshold for proving insolvent trading is very high" - so that's the excuse to do nothing! It's not just builders, the security industry is plagued by this. One company recently went down, $800K is the staff super, $4-5 million in taxes unpaid - three to four new companies appear using the same name, but VIC/QLD/NSW tacked on the end and off they go again, winning Government jobs, doing horrifying works (because all the other regulators are asleep as well), and who looses? Australians! The Governments have to fix the work they do = more tax for you and I, their employees go into retirement with thousands missing, and the industries lose talent and skill because they are smart to leave and go get paid properly for what they do! Always 20-30% cheaper - always able to do that because they don't have the 30-40% tax/super implications the rest of us have, let alone the desire to do the job right. The message from the Government is clear to the White Collar criminals - do what you want, as we won't do anything to stop you - further, the government will actively promote the white collar crims over the rest who try to do the right thing - because today, right now, they are the cheapest, and Government can hide the cost later. BOTH sides of politics support this existing system; what we really need are politicians that have Australia's best interests as its priority. It is not going to happen when these white-collar criminals can donate and rub shoulders with the political parties and political elite. You work for who pays you right? the $200-400K salary pales in comparison to the millions donated each year by third parties to our politicians and parties. Is there a reason the regulators do nothing? As a start, they are underfunded, undersupported, and in some cases, attacked by the political parties that control them. The real question is; is this something that should be addressed in Australia, or are we happy with the current state of affairs with our regulators, and this is just a storm in a teacup we should continue to ignore? https://lnkd.in/g99GKjgZ
