Author: Mark Fletcher

Bill Express announced to the ASX today an extension to its suspension to August 22.  The waiting game continues.  The company says it has received a recapitalisation proposal from a subsidiary of Al Othman Group.  While Al Othman houses several businesses which could provide synergy with the Bill Express model, I am surprised that the company has had to go so far from home and current partners for a financial lifeline.

There was little interest among Victorian newsagents in a meeting by the ANF which was to include a discussion about Bill Express.  The meeting was canceled.  This and poor numbers elsewhere must cast doubt on the legal action proposed by the ANF.

Given the advanced state of the Class Action already on foot and the considerable grassroots support, I would expect this to emerge as the only court action backed by newsagents. 

With so many newsagents behind the Federal Court action, newsagents will be looking to leaders in their channel to take a position supporting a single action, they will want to know that their leaders support the most unified legal move ever undertaken by newsagents.

A flurry of of emails and communication overnight about the status of Bill Express. The reports range from KPMG being called in to conduct a forensic audit through to police involvement to a story that the CEO will not return from overseas. Mark Hawthorne writing at The Age has some details.

Some of what I have been told cannot be confirmed. Interesting movement I have verified surrounds activity connected with developments in Vietnam as announced by OnQ. This relates to BOPO in Vietnam, another joint venture of the business. While the announcement is a year old, it points to a relationship which, it has been suggested to me, is now key to how the Bill Express situation may play out. The Vietnamese venture is not owned by the company. Similarly, the Singapore BOPO operation.

I’d expect greater interest in BOPO as investigators look more into the Bill Express business.

If receivers are appointed to Bill Express, newsagents would be well served to make urgent representations to the receiver on the relationship between Bill Express and Technology Business International (TBI). This will matter because newsagents entered into agreements with TBI to fund $25,000 worth of Bill Express equipment on the basis of rebates promised and even “guaranteed” by Bill Express. The viability of the newsagent commitment to TBI was determined by the rebate commitment by Bill Express.

This is on my mind today because some newsagents think that Bill Express collapsing will end their liability over the lease of Bill express equipment.

Representatives from seventy newsagencies in Queensland met in Brisbane yesterday and endorsed the Federal Court class action commenced against Bill Express, Technology Business International and the Australian Newsagents’ Federation.

This class action, commenced by a group of newsagents in NSW and facilitated through the state association now has strong eastern seaboard support. Newsagents are unifying behind this action as a result of the withdrawal of rebates by Bill Express which were the difference between newsagents breaking even and losing money on the service.

It is good to see Mark Hawthorne continue coverage of the Bill Express saga in the Full Disclosure column in The Age today. There is plenty more yet to surface on the Bill Express story. I would like to see some digging into the companies associated with Bill Express / OnQ. Here is what I wrote last month about one such company, Loyalty Direct:

I have been told that a company called Loyalty Direct Pty Ltd terminated the services of 35 employees on Friday of last week without redundancy or accrued benefits paid. I have also been told that another group of Loyalty Direct employees were terminated and immediately offered contracts with a business called Payroll Express which provides the same services as Loyalty Direct.

Loyalty Direct is registered at the Eaglemont address of Bill Express’ Head Office. An ASIC search shows that Loyalty Direct is under “external administration and/or controller appointed. My understanding is that Loyalty Direct is a private company delivering some services to On Q and or Bill Express. I am not able to verify the location and ownership of Payroll Express.

I note the irony of the Loyalty Direct name.

Since writing this I’ve been told that Payroll Express is not the name of the phoenix company, it is Express Payroll Solutions Pty Ltd (ABN 12 113 484 432). The terminated employees have not, as I understand it, been paid their entitlements.

The ANZ has more at stake than the Bill Express indebtedness. It has merchant terminals across the Bill Express retail network. These generate excellent fees for the bank on every transaction processed. I’d expect that this is a key consideration in its efforts to find a resolution to the Bill Express mess.

For information on Bill Express’ UAE connections, check out the iPay website.  Navigate to strategic partners and read about Bill Express:

Through our Bill EXPRESS® and DialTime® operation, the company owns and operates one of Australia’s largest electronic retail distribution networks.

Over the past 6 years Bill Express has established a robust and proven electronic network of nearly 14,000 terminals throughout Australia generating a revenue exceeding $1 billion.

I am not sure that newsagents would say the Bill Express network is robust, certainly not since late last year.

The iPay website also lists the troubled OnQ as a strategic partner.   OnQ is a substantial shareholder in Bill Express and the holder of the “technology” on which Bill Express is based.

Click here to read the press release announcing the iPay joint venture developed out of Vodatel.

My speculation is that parties associated with iPay are the parties who acquired shares in Bill Express within the last year.  If the reports of Bill Express CEO Ian Christiansen traveling to the UAE are accurate, I would expect him to be seeking more funds from his shareholders there.