Ozem’s MVL imperilled after court rejects rejections

How inconvenient. There was Ozem Kassem, helming Videriva Pty Ltd under the flag of an MVL when alongside comes Anthony Connelly and Kathy Sozou, demanding he take on an unwelcome cargo which, following a hearing in the Federal court this week, will likely force the KPT Restructuring founder to hoist the more commonly flown pennant of an insolvent winding up.

The anticipated change comes about as a result of proceedings the McGrathNicol pair commenced after Kassem rejected four proofs of debt they lodged in the members voluntary liquidation (MVL) of Videriva, to which Kassem was appointed in November 2025.

As liquidators of a suite of entities operating in the defiantly uncompliant labour hire sector Connelly and Sozou had identified payments to Videriva for which no evidence of services provided could be identified.

When they sought answers from Kassem he advised there were inadequate books and records. Nor were they able to obtain an explanation from the director, at least initially, as to the nature of Videriva’s Buisness.

As the Federal Court heard on Wednesday this week, no description of what Videriva did was provided until after proceedings were commenced.

Then solicitors acting for director, Macedonian-born Igor Kotevski 38 of Mortdale, advised that the company was involved in the facilitation and support of Workers compensation claims, administration and general financing.

Pointedly, in defending the proceedings neither the company or Ozem produced any document that supported the description of what Videriva did.

Justice Michael Lee said it was difficult to give much weight to the claims of entitlement to the payments given no verifiable documentation was provided and that the company laptop on which Videriva’s records are allegedly stored was unavailable, though the court wasn’t told if efforts had been made to recover it, or would be made.

When Connelly and Sozou lodged their proofs in January Kassem rejected each on the basis that there were no records that would allow him to adjudicate on the claims. But being funded by the ATO meant the matter wasn’t going to end there.

In March they commenced the proceedings to set aside Ozem’s rejections and on Wednesday they got what they wanted, which did not include an order requiring Ozem to pay their costs of the proceedings personally and without recourse to Videriva’s assets.