Adriana Kostov – Lawsuit, Fraud and More



Adriana Kostov tried to file for bankruptcy but failed to achieve the desired result.

In this write-up, I have shared details regarding her legal proceedings to help you get an idea of what she claimed and why the court didn’t cede to her demands:

Adriana Kostov

Details About the Lawsuit of Adriana Kostov (Excerpts from the Documentation)

That’s what the court requests:

1. The application for a stay documented on 10 July 2020 is denied.

2. The procedures, including all interlocutory applications made by the candidate, be excused.

3. The candidate pay the respondents’ expenses as concurred or burdened.

4. Compliant with r 39.03(2) of the Government Court Rules 2011 (Cth), any further procedures brought by the candidate against both of the respondents for some or every one of the equivalent or considerably similar reasons for activity or alleviation as those guaranteed in these procedures be remained until the costs the subject of request 3 have been paid.

Cause for Judgment (Furthermore Details on the Adriana Kostov Case)

1 On 18 July 2018, District Registrar Wall made a sequestration request against the domain of the candidate, Adriana Kostov, on the use of a lender, Jeffrey Lind Easton. The Authority Legal administrator in Liquidation was named as the legal administrator of Ms Kostov’s bankrupt domain. Ms Kostov didn’t show up at the becoming aware of the leaser’s request before the District Recorder.

2 On 12 December 2018, an application made by Ms Kostov on 13 September 2018 for an expansion of time and survey of the orders made by the Area Recorder on 18 July 2018 was excused by Robertson J. As verified by Robertson J, the liquidation procedures emerged out of costs orders made in procedures in the High Court of New South Grains against Ms Kostov and the endorsement of the important judgment of that Court was in the aggregate sum of $24,447.96. Ms. Kostov didn’t show up at the knowing about her application: Easton v Kostov [2018] FCA 2002 at [1], [3], [18]-[20], [28].

3 In the procedures under the steady gaze of the Court for hearing on 8 July 2020, Ms Kostov’s applications were:

(1) A beginning application recorded on 3 January 2019 as revised on 23 April 2019. The Australian Monetary Security Authority (AFSA) was named as the sole respondent. These applications looked for:

(a) A request as per s 153B(1) of the Insolvency Act 1966 (Cth) dissolving the sequestration request made on 18 July 2018.

(b) In the event that the abrogation request was not made, Ms Kostov looked for the release of her liquidation in 12 months or less.

(c) Orders eliminating AFSA as the legal administrator of her bankrupt home and naming another legal administrator. The Court takes note of that the beginning application recorded on 3 January 2019 didn’t contain an application for expulsion the legal administrator of Ms Kostov’s bankrupt home.

(2) A further revised application dated 27 April 2020. That application looked for interval alleviation as follows:

(a) Survey by the Government Court of a choice made by the Authority Legal administrator and advised to the New South Ridges Common and Regulatory Council (NCAT) corresponding to procedures NSW 2814/18/4 between Ms Kostov and Amelie Lodging (previously known as Ecclesia Lodging Restricted) in a letter from Terrence Arnold (a caseworker representing the Authority Legal administrator) dated 15 November 2018 (November 2018 letter), (see [64(1)] underneath).

The November 2018 letter was replicated to Adriana Kostov and Peterson Haines Legal counselors for Amelie Lodging. It is valuable to take note of that Adriana Kostov was kept out of friendly lodging possessed by Amelie Lodging on 1 June 2018 (after procedures brought by Ecclesia Lodging Restricted for Ms Kostov’s removal emerging from Ms Kostov’s inability to pay lease) and her assets were set away. Various procedures in NCAT and the High Court of New South Ridges connected with that issue;

(b) Duplicates of all correspondence between Carrie Peterson of Peterson Haines Legal counselors (the firm representing Amelie Lodging) and AFSA, and divulgence of any previous business or individual connection among AFSA and Ms Peterson or Amelie Lodging; and

(c) That the Court direct that Adriana Kostov be distributed a caseworker inside AFSA with lawful capabilities.

(3) An in-between time application documented on 21 May 2020. Ms Kostov looked for orders that the procedures be remained until AFSA organized and demonstrated the expenses “pronounced” in Melissa Bondin’s oath sworn on 11 May 2020 and “whenever confirmed” the expenses be “moved to the Candidate’s case [that] the Respondent be eliminated as Legal administrator”, that the dissolution application be “moved to a Legal Survey application under the steady gaze of the Court, to stay away from Respondents guaranteeing costs for ill-advised reason”, legal survey of the choice advised in the November 2018 letter, and, that the respondent give duplicates of all correspondences among AFSA and Ms Peterson, Peterson Haines Attorneys and Amelie Lodging, and reveal any prior private or business connection among AFSA and Ms Peterson or Amelie Lodging.

(4) An application under r 20.31(3) of the Government Court Rules 2011 (Cth) for the creation of reports in classes 2 and 3 beneath which the respondents would not deliver under an archive went to create given by Ms Kostov to AFSA on 9 June 2020 for:

1. Correspondence between Peterson Haines Legal advisor and Amelie Lodging, and Respondents comparable to Choice of Legal administrator of November 2018, argued in Section 14 to 16 of Oath of Ms Melissa Bondin, dated 11 May 2020

2. Notes and confirmation of inward survey of Choice of Legal administrator, and any correspondence between Mr Shaw, and Mr Matthew Osborne, Boss Lawful Official of the Respondent, to embrace a legitimate survey of Choice, argued in Section 16 of Sworn statement of Ms Melissa Bondin, dated 11 May 2020

3. Confirmation of expenses caused, and costs assessed to be brought about by Respondent, argued in 21 and 22 of Oath of Ms Melissa Bondin, dated 11 May 2020

4 Adriana Kostov didn’t show up at the knowing about her application on 28 October 2019. As Ms Kostov had would not join the Authority Legal administrator as a party, the Court made orders on that date joining the Authority Legal administrator as a party and excused the changed application with costs. On 9 Walk 2020, the Court made orders saving the request excusing Ms Kostov’s application in conditions portrayed further underneath and made timetabling orders for the arrangement of proof and entries before a conference recorded for 16 June 2020.d 22 of Sworn statement of Ms Melissa Bondin, dated 11 May 2020

5 In their entries documented on 4 June 2020, the respondents expressed that they neither went against nor assented to the dissolution of Ms Kostov’s liquidation and in any case pulled out that they looked for the accompanying requests from the Court:

(1) Excusing the procedures;

(2) Requesting that Ms Kostov pay the respondents’ expenses; and

(3) Remaining any further procedures being started by Ms Kostov against the respondents until such time as the costs request has been fulfilled.

6 Because of a passing in Ms Kostov’s family toward the beginning of June 2020, the conference was conceded to 8 July 2020.

7 On 24 June 2020 a consultation for return of a summon gave to Peterson Haines Legal counselors and creation of reports under the notification to deliver was held before Legal Enlistment center Cridland. Peterson Haines Legal advisors had addressed the summon given to it on 9 June 2020 and the respondents delivered records in the principal classification, notwithstanding challenge that they were obliged to do as such. It shows up from enquiries made by my chambers with the Court’s Library that Ms Kostov has not looked to inspire any of the records created.

APPLICATIONS IN THIS Procedure (Applications Submitted by Adriana Kostov)

Amended application

  1. Ms Kostov looked for the accompanying help by an application held up in this Court on 3 January 2019 (acknowledged as documented on 15 January 2019), and thusly altered with leave on 23 April 2019 (corrected application), and upheld by affirmations of Ms Kostov sworn on 14 December 2018, 8 February 2019 and 29 April 2019.
  1. First, the sequestration request made on 18 July 2018 be canceled in accordance with s 153B(1) of the Chapter 11 Demonstration. Ms Kostov says she is qualified for that help since she was determined to have a psychological wellness condition in 2017 which she had endured starting around 2015. Ms Kostov said that her clinical records affirm that she was experiencing that condition when she started the procedures which established the judgment obligation which was asserted in Mr Easton’s loan boss’ request. She said that she was excessively unwell to go to when those procedures were excused in 2016 and a costs request made. She says she didn’t take part in the costs evaluation process prompting the judgment obligation for the very reason and that she “doesn’t have the foggiest idea, whether the sum, requested to pay, is right, and, it is probable expanded”. Ms Kostov gave no reference, yet it seems she depended on the conditions alluded to in the New South Ridges Court of Allure’s choice in Kostov v YPOL Pty Ltd at [3]-[9].
  2. Ms Kostov expresses that because of her failure to take part in the procedures in which Mr Easton acquired the costs judgment on which the lender’s appeal depended, the sequestration request ought to be invalid and void. In her testimony dated 29 April 2020 Ms Kostov said that she enquired with the High Court of New South Grains concerning any survey choices she had in regards to the costs request and proceeded to say “notwithstanding, actually, I have as of now currently, lived as a “bankrupt”, for a very long time, and experienced the burden of such – and an audit of such, would just lead, to additional expenses”.

4 Ms Kostov gave composed entries on 7 August 2019 (after the time gave in the Court’s requests to her to do so and without leave). Ms Kostov submitted as follows:

(1) She had not been furnished with a meeting comparable to her liquidation as she was proclaimed bankrupt in her nonattendance and hence had a programmed right of survey.

(2) Because of sickness, she didn’t partake in the costs appraisal process connecting with the judgment obligation on which the liquidation request was based.

(3) Aside from the judgment obligation, she just had a Visa obligation of $4,000, which she took care of month to month.

(4) She said that she had offered Mr Easton the chance to decorate her wages yet that proposition was “met with quietness”.

(5) She communicated worry that she had been expected for questioning (the Court surmises, in the procedures before Robertson J) “on an exceptionally essential matter” and described this as provocation.

(6) She whined that Mr Easton had spent more “to keep me bankrupt” than he was owed. She presented that that was proof that Mr Easton had sought after a sequestration request for an ill-advised reason and to help one of his workers in an individual matter.

(7) Ms Kostov said:

I remind this court, that it is unquestionably significant, for somebody with Regulation/Trade degrees, to be pronounced bankrupt – it generally, obstructs large numbers of my profession open doors, and I submit, partially, this is the reason, Mr Easton has been so forceful moreover.

Discharge (Rejection of Adriana Kostov’s Applications)

Adriana Kostov depended on a paper report distributed in the “Ruler George Resident” on 13 December 2014 concerning a choice by a Canadian court to release the liquidation of a lady who experienced a psychological sickness when the sequestration request was made. She currently likewise looks to depend on the presence of the “Brunner test”, under which individuals in the US of America are released from responsibility from educational loans. In any case, Adriana Kostov has not recognized any premise in that frame of mind for the Court to make a request for her initial release from chapter 11 where the Court considers it unseemly to make a revocation request and the Court doesn’t know about one. Further, as verified at [40] over, the proposal made by Equity Interface that the Chapter 11 Demonstration be altered to allow release following a year has not been embraced. Appropriately, this request should come up short.

240 While s 149 of the Chapter 11 Demonstration accommodates programmed release from insolvency three years after a proclamation of undertakings has been recorded (except if that period is reached out), as Ms Kostov has not documented the explanation of issues, that time has not yet initiated to run. Had she recorded an explanation of issues in July 2018, there would just be a year to go from now.

Expenses and remain on Additional Procedures

  1. As Ms Kostov was fruitless in every last bit of her applications it is proper that they be excused and that she be requested to pay the respondents’ expenses. At the conference on 8 July 2020, Mr Support presented that Ms Kostov’s direct would have legitimized a request being made on a repayment premise yet the respondents chose not to make that case on the premise that Ms Kostov is probably not going to have the option to meet any request as to costs.

In their entries recorded on 4 June 2020, the respondents made the accompanying entries:

  1. The Respondents will be squeezing for the make a difference to be heard in a last way and to be managed and excused with irrevocability if Ms Kostov doesn’t show up.
  1. His Honor Equity Robertson made a request that, compliant with rule 39.03(2) of the Government Court Rules, any further procedures brought by Ms Kostov against the appealing to loan boss in the liquidation procedures, Jeffrey Lind Easton, be remained. Those costs have not been paid. This dissolution application is to all plans and purposes a further endeavor to survey the sequestration request and massive expenses have been caused.
  1. If the Court isn’t fulfilled that Ms Kostov has met the important onus to demonstrate that her chapter 11 ought to be revoked and as a result these procedures are excused, then the Respondents look for a costs request and furthermore a request that any further procedures brought by Ms Kostov against the Respondents connecting with her insolvency be remained until such time as such costs orders are paid. This request is looked for in accordance with Rule 39.03(2) of the Government Court Rules.
  1. Ms Kostov didn’t address these issues in her entries dated 25 June 2020 or in any of her correspondence shipped off the Court.
  1. 246 At the meeting on 8 July 2020, Mr Support demonstrated that the respondents had mulled over whether they ought to look for a request proclaiming Ms Kostov to be a vexatious defendant, however had chosen not to do as such. The Court thinks about that that was fitting, given the Authority Legal administrator’s proceeding with job as legal administrator of Ms Kostov’s bankrupt domain and the way that, as a legal administrator in chapter 11, it is dependent upon the Court’s management.

Frequently Asked Questions About Adriana Kostov

Who is Adriana Kostov?

Adriana Kostov, was designated Provincial Chief, Australia, of the worldwide Speculative stock investments Relationship, in 2013, while additionally already standing firm on the footholds of Head of Administrative Issues and Consistence for Excalibur Supports The board, and the Lawful and Connsel Guidance and Company Secretary at Blackswan Values.

Where is Adriana Kostov situated?

Adriana Kostov, was selected Local Director, Australia, of the worldwide Hedge Funds Affiliation.

What did Adriana Kostov do?

Adriana Kostov was Australia’s most memorable Local Director, of the worldwide Hedge Fund Association. With degrees in Regulation and Business.


Adriana Kostov was involved in a long legal battle where she tried filing for bankruptcy to avoid paying charges but the court rightfully rejected her appeal.

Beware of such people who try to abuse the legal system to get their way.

There are plenty of examples of those who abuse legal loopholes to get ahead. Some examples include Gary Kompothecras, Eren Niazi and Sean Frank of Cloud Equity Group.



The views and opinions expressed in these articles are those of the source and do not necessarily reflect the official position of ‘Cyber Combat,’ which shall not be held liable for any inaccuracies presented. The information provided within this article is for general informational purposes only. While we try to keep the information up-to-date and correct, there are no representations or warranties, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability of the information in this article for any purpose.

This article is syndicated automatically through a third-party agency from

To view the original article at, you can visit