  |  Sunil Chand at NFP conference in Labasa |
The collapse of Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd in Australia has entered a significant new phase with the release of the liquidators' first statutory report to creditors. Although the report concerns the Australian company, it inevitably draws renewed attention to its director, Sunil Chand, who is also the long-time business associate and co-director of NFP leader Biman Chand Prasad in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd.
The report itself makes no allegations against his cousin Prasad and does not refer to Fiji. However, it places Sunil Chand's business affairs under renewed scrutiny at a time when his Fiji property dealings and Prasad's statutory declarations from 2014-2024 have already attracted considerable public and legal attention.
For Fijileaks readers, the significance of the report lies not in what it says about Fiji, because it says nothing, but in what it reveals about the collapse of another Lotus company under Sunil Chand's directorship and the serious issues now being examined by independent Australian liquidators.
The report itself makes no allegations against his cousin Prasad and does not refer to Fiji. However, it places Sunil Chand's business affairs under renewed scrutiny at a time when his Fiji property dealings and Prasad's statutory declarations from 2014-2024 have already attracted considerable public and legal attention.
For Fijileaks readers, the significance of the report lies not in what it says about Fiji, because it says nothing, but in what it reveals about the collapse of another Lotus company under Sunil Chand's directorship and the serious issues now being examined by independent Australian liquidators.
A Company With Virtually No Assets
The liquidators' assessment is stark. After taking control of Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd, they found virtually nothing available for creditors.
According to the report, the company has no realisable cash; no commercially valuable motor vehicles; no other identifiable assets capable of producing returns for creditors.
The liquidators estimate the company's realisable assets at nil.
Against this stands estimated liabilities of approximately A$1.24 million, comprising A$752,508 in unpaid employee superannuation obligations; and A$487,831 in unsecured statutory debts.
The liquidators' assessment is stark. After taking control of Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd, they found virtually nothing available for creditors.
According to the report, the company has no realisable cash; no commercially valuable motor vehicles; no other identifiable assets capable of producing returns for creditors.
The liquidators estimate the company's realisable assets at nil.
Against this stands estimated liabilities of approximately A$1.24 million, comprising A$752,508 in unpaid employee superannuation obligations; and A$487,831 in unsecured statutory debts.
On the information presently available, the liquidators conclude there is no realistic prospect of any dividend being paid to creditors, unless future recovery actions prove successful.
Employees and Government Agencies Among Major Creditors
One of the most striking aspects of the report is the scale of unpaid statutory obligations.
The largest claim relates to unpaid compulsory superannuation contributions owed to former employees, amounting to more than A$752,000.
In addition, unsecured statutory creditors include the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), which has lodged claims exceeding A$470,000; and iCare, the New South Wales workers' compensation authority, which is owed more than A$17,000.
These figures demonstrate that much of the company's outstanding debt is owed to employees and government agencies rather than commercial suppliers.
No Money for Creditors
The report makes it clear that creditors should prepare for the likelihood that they will receive nothing. Any future return depends entirely upon successful legal recovery actions; possible claims against the director; recovery of previously unidentified assets; or other successful litigation undertaken by the liquidators. Without those recoveries, creditors appear unlikely to receive any distribution.
Preliminary Finding That the Company Was Insolvent
One of the report's most important conclusions concerns insolvency. Following preliminary investigations, the liquidators believe Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd became insolvent sometime during the 2022 financial year, possibly earlier, and remained insolvent until the company entered liquidation.
They emphasise that investigations are continuing before a final insolvency date can be determined. The timing matters because Australian insolvency law allows liquidators to examine transactions entered into after a company became insolvent and, where appropriate, seek recovery for creditors.
Insolvent Trading Under Active Investigation
The liquidators confirm they are investigating whether the company traded while insolvent. Although no final determination has been made, they explain that further financial analysis is required; any legal claim must first establish the date of insolvency; the director may have legal defences available; and any proceedings would require detailed legal advice. Nevertheless, the issue remains under active investigation.
The report also expresses the preliminary view that the director may not be able to rely on Australia's Safe Harbour protections, although that question has not yet been finally determined.
Possible Breaches of the Corporations Act
Perhaps the most significant part of the report concerns the liquidators' assessment of possible breaches of Australian corporate law. Based on investigations conducted to date, the report states that the director may have breached Section 180 of the Corporations Act relating to directors' duties; and Section 588G relating to insolvent trading. Importantly, these are not findings of guilt.
Rather, they are preliminary opinions reached by the liquidators during the course of their statutory investigation.
The report also confirms that a formal report is being prepared for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) under Section 533 of the Corporations Act, dealing with potential offences identified during the liquidation.
Shareholder Loan Transactions Identified
ASIC's accompanying statutory Form 5601 identifies another issue requiring further examination. Among the possible recovery actions listed are "Shareholder loan transactions to the director." The form also confirms that possible recovery actions against directors or related parties remain under consideration. Again, these are matters requiring investigation rather than findings of wrongdoing.
Employees and Government Agencies Among Major Creditors
One of the most striking aspects of the report is the scale of unpaid statutory obligations.
The largest claim relates to unpaid compulsory superannuation contributions owed to former employees, amounting to more than A$752,000.
In addition, unsecured statutory creditors include the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), which has lodged claims exceeding A$470,000; and iCare, the New South Wales workers' compensation authority, which is owed more than A$17,000.
These figures demonstrate that much of the company's outstanding debt is owed to employees and government agencies rather than commercial suppliers.
No Money for Creditors
The report makes it clear that creditors should prepare for the likelihood that they will receive nothing. Any future return depends entirely upon successful legal recovery actions; possible claims against the director; recovery of previously unidentified assets; or other successful litigation undertaken by the liquidators. Without those recoveries, creditors appear unlikely to receive any distribution.
Preliminary Finding That the Company Was Insolvent
One of the report's most important conclusions concerns insolvency. Following preliminary investigations, the liquidators believe Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd became insolvent sometime during the 2022 financial year, possibly earlier, and remained insolvent until the company entered liquidation.
They emphasise that investigations are continuing before a final insolvency date can be determined. The timing matters because Australian insolvency law allows liquidators to examine transactions entered into after a company became insolvent and, where appropriate, seek recovery for creditors.
Insolvent Trading Under Active Investigation
The liquidators confirm they are investigating whether the company traded while insolvent. Although no final determination has been made, they explain that further financial analysis is required; any legal claim must first establish the date of insolvency; the director may have legal defences available; and any proceedings would require detailed legal advice. Nevertheless, the issue remains under active investigation.
The report also expresses the preliminary view that the director may not be able to rely on Australia's Safe Harbour protections, although that question has not yet been finally determined.
Possible Breaches of the Corporations Act
Perhaps the most significant part of the report concerns the liquidators' assessment of possible breaches of Australian corporate law. Based on investigations conducted to date, the report states that the director may have breached Section 180 of the Corporations Act relating to directors' duties; and Section 588G relating to insolvent trading. Importantly, these are not findings of guilt.
Rather, they are preliminary opinions reached by the liquidators during the course of their statutory investigation.
The report also confirms that a formal report is being prepared for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) under Section 533 of the Corporations Act, dealing with potential offences identified during the liquidation.
Shareholder Loan Transactions Identified
ASIC's accompanying statutory Form 5601 identifies another issue requiring further examination. Among the possible recovery actions listed are "Shareholder loan transactions to the director." The form also confirms that possible recovery actions against directors or related parties remain under consideration. Again, these are matters requiring investigation rather than findings of wrongdoing.
Company Had Almost Nothing Left
The report paints a bleak financial picture.
The company's three Westpac bank accounts collectively held a net debit balance of just A$3.69.
The only remaining registered vehicle, a 1999 Mitsubishi Canter, was assessed as having no commercial value.
The liquidators also discovered that six additional vehicles formerly registered to the company had already been disposed of or deregistered before liquidation, and investigations into those assets remain ongoing.
Books and Records
The liquidators reviewed the company's accounting records and financial information. They conclude that financial records generally existed and appeared adequate to satisfy statutory record-keeping obligations.
However, they also note that management accounts were not maintained after trading ceased, meaning further investigation remains necessary before final conclusions can be reached.
Recovery Actions May Depend Upon Funding
Ironically, the report acknowledges that the liquidation currently lacks sufficient funds to pursue all potential legal claims. Creditors are therefore invited to contribute funding if they wish the liquidators to continue investigating possible recovery actions.
This highlights an unfortunate reality of many corporate collapses: serious legal issues may exist, but pursuing them often depends upon whether sufficient money is available to finance litigation.
Australian Investigation Continues
The liquidators outline several tasks still to be completed, including lodging their statutory report with ASIC; completing investigations into possible recovery claims; pursuing any identified claims if commercially viable; and finalising the liquidation within approximately six months, subject to recovery proceedings.
The report therefore represents the beginning, not the conclusion, of the investigation.
Why This Matters in Fiji
The liquidation report concerns an Australian company. It does not make allegations about Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, nor does it accuse Biman Chand Prasad of any wrongdoing.
Nevertheless, the report is undeniably relevant in Fiji because Sunil Chand remains widely known as the co-director and long-time business associate of NFP leader Biman Prasad in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd.
Corporate developments involving one of Chand's principal companies are therefore likely to attract close public interest, particularly given the wider public scrutiny already surrounding Lotus-related business ventures.
The Bigger Picture
Corporate liquidation reports are investigative documents prepared by independent insolvency practitioners acting under statutory duties.
They are not criminal judgments and should not be interpreted as findings of guilt. However, they do identify issues that independent liquidators consider sufficiently serious to warrant continued investigation and formal reporting to Australia's corporate regulator.
In this case, those issues include preliminary findings of insolvency; possible insolvent trading; possible breaches of directors' duties; shareholder loan transactions involving the director; potential recovery actions against the director or related parties; and liabilities exceeding A$1.24 million with virtually no recoverable assets. Whether those investigations ultimately result in legal proceedings remains to be seen.
What is already beyond dispute is that another company associated with Sunil Chand has collapsed into liquidation leaving substantial unpaid liabilities, no meaningful assets for creditors, and a series of unanswered questions now under formal investigation by independent Australian liquidators and, potentially, ASIC.
For Fijileaks readers, the report serves as another important chapter in the wider Lotus story. While it makes no findings regarding Fiji or Biman Prasad, it reinforces the public importance of closely scrutinising the corporate affairs of individuals who continue to occupy prominent positions in both business and public life.
The report paints a bleak financial picture.
The company's three Westpac bank accounts collectively held a net debit balance of just A$3.69.
The only remaining registered vehicle, a 1999 Mitsubishi Canter, was assessed as having no commercial value.
The liquidators also discovered that six additional vehicles formerly registered to the company had already been disposed of or deregistered before liquidation, and investigations into those assets remain ongoing.
Books and Records
The liquidators reviewed the company's accounting records and financial information. They conclude that financial records generally existed and appeared adequate to satisfy statutory record-keeping obligations.
However, they also note that management accounts were not maintained after trading ceased, meaning further investigation remains necessary before final conclusions can be reached.
Recovery Actions May Depend Upon Funding
Ironically, the report acknowledges that the liquidation currently lacks sufficient funds to pursue all potential legal claims. Creditors are therefore invited to contribute funding if they wish the liquidators to continue investigating possible recovery actions.
This highlights an unfortunate reality of many corporate collapses: serious legal issues may exist, but pursuing them often depends upon whether sufficient money is available to finance litigation.
Australian Investigation Continues
The liquidators outline several tasks still to be completed, including lodging their statutory report with ASIC; completing investigations into possible recovery claims; pursuing any identified claims if commercially viable; and finalising the liquidation within approximately six months, subject to recovery proceedings.
The report therefore represents the beginning, not the conclusion, of the investigation.
Why This Matters in Fiji
The liquidation report concerns an Australian company. It does not make allegations about Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, nor does it accuse Biman Chand Prasad of any wrongdoing.
Nevertheless, the report is undeniably relevant in Fiji because Sunil Chand remains widely known as the co-director and long-time business associate of NFP leader Biman Prasad in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd.
Corporate developments involving one of Chand's principal companies are therefore likely to attract close public interest, particularly given the wider public scrutiny already surrounding Lotus-related business ventures.
The Bigger Picture
Corporate liquidation reports are investigative documents prepared by independent insolvency practitioners acting under statutory duties.
They are not criminal judgments and should not be interpreted as findings of guilt. However, they do identify issues that independent liquidators consider sufficiently serious to warrant continued investigation and formal reporting to Australia's corporate regulator.
In this case, those issues include preliminary findings of insolvency; possible insolvent trading; possible breaches of directors' duties; shareholder loan transactions involving the director; potential recovery actions against the director or related parties; and liabilities exceeding A$1.24 million with virtually no recoverable assets. Whether those investigations ultimately result in legal proceedings remains to be seen.
What is already beyond dispute is that another company associated with Sunil Chand has collapsed into liquidation leaving substantial unpaid liabilities, no meaningful assets for creditors, and a series of unanswered questions now under formal investigation by independent Australian liquidators and, potentially, ASIC.
For Fijileaks readers, the report serves as another important chapter in the wider Lotus story. While it makes no findings regarding Fiji or Biman Prasad, it reinforces the public importance of closely scrutinising the corporate affairs of individuals who continue to occupy prominent positions in both business and public life.
NABAVATU TENDER UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: Did Sunil Chand Rely on the Reputation of an Australian Company That Liquidators Now Say Had Been Insolvent Since 2022?
When Lotus Projects Pte Ltd submitted its multimillion-dollar bid for Fiji's Nabavatu Village Relocation Project in July 2024, the proposal projected confidence, competence and financial strength. It portrayed director Sunil Chand as an accomplished builder whose decades of experience in Australia made him ideally placed to deliver one of the country's most significant rural housing projects.
Today, however, the tender deserves to be read in a very different light.
Since the bid was lodged, Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd, the Australian company whose experience featured prominently throughout the submission, has entered liquidation. More significantly, the liquidators have reached the preliminary conclusion that the company became insolvent sometime during the 2022 financial year, possibly earlier, and remained insolvent until it was ultimately wound up.
That chronology raises an important public interest question.
If the Australian company was already insolvent when the Nabavatu tender was submitted in July 2024, should that financial position have been disclosed to the Fiji Government?
A Tender Built on Australian Experience
The 68-page proposal was designed to persuade government evaluators that Lotus Projects possessed the technical expertise, management capability and commercial experience required to construct 37 two-bedroom homes for relocated Nabavatu villagers under an Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contract valued at approximately FJ$5.29 million.
Throughout the submission, Chand's Australian construction history was presented as one of the company's greatest strengths.
The proposal stated that Lotus Projects had extensive experience delivering construction projects throughout Sydney and New South Wales, ranging from residential developments to commercial works. It claimed that the company's combined knowledge enabled it to assess project risks, deliver value and complete complex construction projects successfully.
The Australian business was not mentioned merely as background information.
It became one of the principal foundations upon which the bid rested.
Testimonials Reinforced That Reputation
Several supporting documents reinforced the image of a successful Australian construction company.
A consulting engineer stated that he had known Sunil Chand for approximately twenty years as a licensed builder in New South Wales and described Lotus Constructions as having successfully completed projects on time and within budget. He recommended Chand without hesitation.
Another testimonial described Lotus Construction Pty Ltd as a "highly successful venture" in Australia's building industry, praising Chand's entrepreneurial achievements before highlighting his investments back in Fiji.
The tender also included copies of Australian building licences, insurance commitments, architectural support letters, engineering endorsements and Fiji tax compliance certificates, all of which reinforced the impression that Lotus Projects was backed by a proven and financially credible construction enterprise.
The Liquidators' Findings Change the Context: None of the tender documents disclosed any financial difficulty involving the Australian company.
There was no indication of insolvency; no reference to financial distress; no mention of creditor problems; no suggestion that Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd was experiencing serious commercial difficulties.
Yet the subsequent liquidation has fundamentally altered the context in which the proposal is now viewed.
According to the liquidators' preliminary investigations, Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd had become insolvent during the 2022 financial year, possibly earlier, and remained insolvent until liquidation.
If that preliminary conclusion is ultimately confirmed, it means that when the Nabavatu proposal was submitted in July 2024, the Australian company whose reputation was repeatedly relied upon had potentially been insolvent for approximately two years.
Questions That Now Deserve Answers
That does not automatically establish that the Nabavatu tender contained false statements. Nor does it prove that Lotus Projects Pte Ltd in Fiji was itself insolvent. Those are separate issues requiring separate evidence. However, the liquidators' findings inevitably raise questions that deserve careful examination.
Among them are the following: Was the Fiji Government aware of the Australian company's financial position when assessing the tender? Should the financial condition of Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd have been disclosed if its experience and reputation were being relied upon to strengthen the bid? Would knowledge that the Australian company had allegedly been insolvent since 2022 have influenced the evaluation of the proposal? What due diligence, if any, was undertaken regarding the financial standing of the Australian business?
These are legitimate questions of procurement transparency rather than conclusions of wrongdoing.
Insolvency Does Not Automatically Prevent Tendering
It is equally important to distinguish insolvency from liquidation. Under Australian law, an insolvent company may continue operating for a period of time. It may complete projects, employ staff and continue trading, although directors may face legal consequences if insolvent trading provisions are breached.
Accordingly, the mere existence of insolvency does not automatically invalidate contracts or prevent a company or its directors from participating in commercial activities.
Nevertheless, where a tender relies heavily upon the reputation, experience and apparent commercial strength of a related company, the later discovery that liquidators believe that company had already been insolvent for years inevitably raises questions about what information was available, and what information should have been disclosed, at the time the bid was assessed.
A Different Perspective
When government evaluators read the Nabavatu proposal in 2024, they saw a polished submission presenting Lotus Projects as a contractor backed by decades of successful Australian construction experience.
Today, that same document reads differently.
The technical methodology, testimonials and endorsements remain exactly as they were.
What has changed is the context.
The liquidators' preliminary findings now cast a shadow over the Australian business whose reputation featured so prominently throughout the proposal. Whether that shadow should have affected the tender evaluation is ultimately a matter for those responsible for public procurement and, if necessary, further regulatory inquiry.
For the public, however, the chronology alone makes the Nabavatu tender worthy of renewed scrutiny. It presents a proposal submitted in 2024 that relied heavily on the standing of an Australian construction company which liquidators now believe had already been insolvent since at least 2022. That is a development that cannot simply be ignored.
Today, however, the tender deserves to be read in a very different light.
Since the bid was lodged, Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd, the Australian company whose experience featured prominently throughout the submission, has entered liquidation. More significantly, the liquidators have reached the preliminary conclusion that the company became insolvent sometime during the 2022 financial year, possibly earlier, and remained insolvent until it was ultimately wound up.
That chronology raises an important public interest question.
If the Australian company was already insolvent when the Nabavatu tender was submitted in July 2024, should that financial position have been disclosed to the Fiji Government?
A Tender Built on Australian Experience
The 68-page proposal was designed to persuade government evaluators that Lotus Projects possessed the technical expertise, management capability and commercial experience required to construct 37 two-bedroom homes for relocated Nabavatu villagers under an Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contract valued at approximately FJ$5.29 million.
Throughout the submission, Chand's Australian construction history was presented as one of the company's greatest strengths.
The proposal stated that Lotus Projects had extensive experience delivering construction projects throughout Sydney and New South Wales, ranging from residential developments to commercial works. It claimed that the company's combined knowledge enabled it to assess project risks, deliver value and complete complex construction projects successfully.
The Australian business was not mentioned merely as background information.
It became one of the principal foundations upon which the bid rested.
Testimonials Reinforced That Reputation
Several supporting documents reinforced the image of a successful Australian construction company.
A consulting engineer stated that he had known Sunil Chand for approximately twenty years as a licensed builder in New South Wales and described Lotus Constructions as having successfully completed projects on time and within budget. He recommended Chand without hesitation.
Another testimonial described Lotus Construction Pty Ltd as a "highly successful venture" in Australia's building industry, praising Chand's entrepreneurial achievements before highlighting his investments back in Fiji.
The tender also included copies of Australian building licences, insurance commitments, architectural support letters, engineering endorsements and Fiji tax compliance certificates, all of which reinforced the impression that Lotus Projects was backed by a proven and financially credible construction enterprise.
The Liquidators' Findings Change the Context: None of the tender documents disclosed any financial difficulty involving the Australian company.
There was no indication of insolvency; no reference to financial distress; no mention of creditor problems; no suggestion that Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd was experiencing serious commercial difficulties.
Yet the subsequent liquidation has fundamentally altered the context in which the proposal is now viewed.
According to the liquidators' preliminary investigations, Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd had become insolvent during the 2022 financial year, possibly earlier, and remained insolvent until liquidation.
If that preliminary conclusion is ultimately confirmed, it means that when the Nabavatu proposal was submitted in July 2024, the Australian company whose reputation was repeatedly relied upon had potentially been insolvent for approximately two years.
Questions That Now Deserve Answers
That does not automatically establish that the Nabavatu tender contained false statements. Nor does it prove that Lotus Projects Pte Ltd in Fiji was itself insolvent. Those are separate issues requiring separate evidence. However, the liquidators' findings inevitably raise questions that deserve careful examination.
Among them are the following: Was the Fiji Government aware of the Australian company's financial position when assessing the tender? Should the financial condition of Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd have been disclosed if its experience and reputation were being relied upon to strengthen the bid? Would knowledge that the Australian company had allegedly been insolvent since 2022 have influenced the evaluation of the proposal? What due diligence, if any, was undertaken regarding the financial standing of the Australian business?
These are legitimate questions of procurement transparency rather than conclusions of wrongdoing.
Insolvency Does Not Automatically Prevent Tendering
It is equally important to distinguish insolvency from liquidation. Under Australian law, an insolvent company may continue operating for a period of time. It may complete projects, employ staff and continue trading, although directors may face legal consequences if insolvent trading provisions are breached.
Accordingly, the mere existence of insolvency does not automatically invalidate contracts or prevent a company or its directors from participating in commercial activities.
Nevertheless, where a tender relies heavily upon the reputation, experience and apparent commercial strength of a related company, the later discovery that liquidators believe that company had already been insolvent for years inevitably raises questions about what information was available, and what information should have been disclosed, at the time the bid was assessed.
A Different Perspective
When government evaluators read the Nabavatu proposal in 2024, they saw a polished submission presenting Lotus Projects as a contractor backed by decades of successful Australian construction experience.
Today, that same document reads differently.
The technical methodology, testimonials and endorsements remain exactly as they were.
What has changed is the context.
The liquidators' preliminary findings now cast a shadow over the Australian business whose reputation featured so prominently throughout the proposal. Whether that shadow should have affected the tender evaluation is ultimately a matter for those responsible for public procurement and, if necessary, further regulatory inquiry.
For the public, however, the chronology alone makes the Nabavatu tender worthy of renewed scrutiny. It presents a proposal submitted in 2024 that relied heavily on the standing of an Australian construction company which liquidators now believe had already been insolvent since at least 2022. That is a development that cannot simply be ignored.
 |   |
SOURCES: It Is Understood This Brisbane Property Was Put Up for Sale to Recover the Shift Finance Australia Loan Advanced to Sunil Chand
Fijileaks has been informed by a source familiar with the matter that the Brisbane property was placed on the market in an effort to recover a loan advanced by Swift to Sunil Chand. Fijileaks has not independently verified this claim despite writing to the estate agent in Brisbane.
THE BROCHURE THAT RAISES QUESTIONS
Sunil Chand's Nabavatu Tender Featured Newspaper Reports Celebrating the 28 Lotus Construction (Fiji) Villas Opened by then FFP Minister Parveen Bala, Yet Biman Prasad Never Declared He Was Lotus (Fiji) Co-Director, That He Bought Two Off-Plan Villas, or That His Wife Rajni Kaushal Chand Allegedly Owns Two Villas in the Development
