Ms Jackie Lavin:

We had a very successful viable company. We had prime sites all over the country, nothing was half built or half finished. Our loan to value ratio had been reduced from seven times the value of the loan because the value of the properties had been written down to about three times the value of the loan. We had a pragmatic view also in that the properties that were not producing the level of return we required were for sale at the time. We were doing the right thing in terms of getting as much cash in as we possibly could to pay off the loans. We were doing all of that. There was no need whatsoever to transfer our loans. It was not as if were not engaging with the bank. We were engaging with the bank on a daily basis and they knew everything that was going on. The bank encouraged us to take the buyout from our main franchise in order to get the cash. The bank was in to grab the cash at all times, without any thought of the cost to the company. As soon as the company divested itself of its main franchise and had others to come in instead, and that was the whole purpose of giving up the main franchise, the bank then shut down shop and did not allow the company to carry on business any more.

To answer the Senator's question on the impact of this on us as people, from 2012 it was shock tactics. One minute one was in business and the next minute, one literally had nothing. They took absolutely everything - mobile phones, computers and the pens from the desk. They shut everything down.

We never had an experience of a receivership and we were in shock. We were naive and stupid. If we knew then what we know now, it would never have happened. That is another story.