Mark Levi "persistently dishonest" - CALDB

THE decision by the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board (CALDB) to strip Mark Darren Levi of his liquidator's registration has been upheld after the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) rejected for a second time the Titan Advisory founder's application for a stay.

In judgement published this week, AAT deputy president Robin Handley found no reason to grant a stay, or agree to Levi's request that the CALDB decision be kept confidential. (See the full judgement here)

Levi's lawyer, John Sutton of Armstrong Legal, said today his client would apply to have CALDB's decision set aside at a full hearing of the ATT. Levi denies the allegations that lay at the heart of CALDB's deliberations.

CALDB ruled Levi unfit to hold a liquidator's registration on July 2, 2013 after a three day hearing last May.

The CALDB hearing stemmed from an application to the board by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) on October 12, 2012.

ASIC sought the cancellation of Levi's registration as a liquidator, alleging that in April 2009 and again in October 2009, while working for Pitt Street liquidator Jamieson Louttit & Associates (JLA), Levi used funds from Biseja, a company in receivership, to pay his personal tax.

Levi exposed - judge says criminal prosecution "likely"

MARK Darrren Levi has been exposed as the Sydney liquidator alleged to have taken more than $90,000 from a company in receivership to pay his tax.

Levi, who denies the allegations, had until yesterday been protected by a Supreme Court non-publication order.

That order was imposed while he appealed an earlier judgement which had dismissed his application for a stay of a disciplinary hearing before the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board (CALDB).

The appeal proceedings, held before Justice John Basten, were dismissed on May 2, 2013 and in the NSW Supreme Court yesterday, Justice Stephen Rothman agreed with ASIC's application to have his order of April 3, 2013, suppressing the Titan Advisory managing director's identity, set aside.

“The court orders the non-publication order issued on April 3, 2013 be vacated,” Justice Rothman said, adding: “the suppression orders are sought in order to ensure the plaintiff has a fair criminal trial, if and when one commences.

“The fact that the criminal trial has not commenced is a factor to be taken into account in this exercise. Nevertheless, as stated in the first judgement, I consider a criminal prosecution likely”, Justice Rothman concluded. (Read today's judgement)