Latest twist in Roxy Jacenko’s failed $10million house lottery as she battles over ‘company assets’ including a Hermes Birkin bag and Rolex watch

Roxy Jacenko remains in conflict with her former partners after a $10 million home sale fell through.

Jacenko teamed up with businessmen Youssef Tleis and Kassim Alaouie on her online course Brand Bootcamp for entrepreneurs. Together they launched a promotion where new customers could win three great prizes.

The prizes included a $10 million waterfront home in Cronulla owned by Mr Tleis and Mr Alaouie, a Birkin bag and a Rolex watch. The draw for the competition was due to take place last month but was later cancelled.

The 44-year-old PR mogul has now filed forms with ASIC detailing how much the company owes to creditors, the Daily Telegraph rreported on Saturday.

Tleis and Alaouie have also filed a claim with ASIC, but their claims over what is owed differ, the publication said.

Roxy listed herself as the company’s sole creditor and says she is owed approximately $295,000.

Meanwhile, her former partners wrote that they owed $107,000 to Yazbeck Law, an undisclosed amount to the Australian Taxation Office, $5,000 in accounting fees and $10,000 to Tleis.

The men also dispute an alleged $210,000 payment to Jacenko, arguing it was an “unfair” or “voidable” transaction.

A Hermes Birkin bag and a Rolex watch that were originally part of the giveaway are being listed by Tleis and Alaouie as “company-owned assets,” while Jacenko reportedly plans to keep the expensive items.

Roxy is said to have paid out $76,000 in refunds to disgruntled participants in her highly controversial and failed $10 million lottery.

Jacenko announced on social media at the time that she would be leaving after discovering a ‘shortage’ in the prize pool, demanding that she pay the customers back the money from her own pocket.

“I stand by my offer to refund clients and as a result $684,000 of my own personal money remains in my lawyer’s trust account,” she told Ny Breaking Australia at the time.

Jacenko has made $76,019 in refunds to participants in the aborted giveaway, just over 10 percent of the money she claimed to have set aside for the refunds, The Daily Telegraph reported.

A total of 7,489 people paid between $29 and $499 to enroll in the boot camp, but it’s estimated that about 90 percent of participants still have no money left after refunds.

Only participants who submitted a refund request within a seven-day period, from June 9 to June 15, were eligible for a refund from Jacenko.

After Jacenko was criticized for the short refund period, she responded fiercely to critics on social media, claiming that she was not obligated to offer the refund at all.

“I am now processing refunds from my personal bank account. As you know, I went into partnership with two other people, which was a terrible f**king failure,” she began.

“If you’re an honorable person, you put your hand in your pocket and give people money back, which I’m going to do starting this week. Money back remains open until today.”

“One thing about the refund period: you don’t go to Woolworths and buy Nutri-Grain and then after three months say they have to take it back and exchange it or give you a full refund,” she added.

“A seven-day window is not an unusual offer, it’s not even something I had to do. I chose to reimburse those who applied out of my own pocket.”

Jacenko is said to be pushing for the $76,000 repayments to be returned by liquidators after Roxy Bootcamp was ordered to be liquidated last week.

Jacenko’s lawyers have also reportedly informed her former business partners that she plans to keep the Birkin bag and Rolex watch they purchased as part of her investment in the giveaway.

After the failed venture, the New South Wales Supreme Court appointed liquidators for the company. Jacenko stepped down as a director last month.

Jacenko initially requested the appointment of provisional liquidators over allegations that Mr Tleis and Mr Alaouie had engaged in “misleading conduct” during the promotion, based on a sub-clause that stated that the prizes would only be awarded if the competition generated more than $11.5 million in revenue.

But the terms were never made public by Jacenko amid a storm of publicity and the clause was also missing from the formal terms and conditions of the competition on Roxy’s Bootcamp’s website.

In another update to the much-discussed saga, Supreme Court Justice Anthony McGrath last week reportedly denied Jacenko’s request for her legal costs to be reimbursed.

“I do not consider that Mr Tleis conducted the proceedings unreasonably in opposing the application for a provisional liquidator on the grounds that it might damage the reputation of the company and Tleis Investments,” Judge McGrath said.

‘The fact that Mr Tleis opposed the appointment of provisional liquidators and subsequently agreed to it does not justify the finding that their conduct was unreasonable.’

Mr Tleis and Mr Alaouie previously argued that the promotion should go ahead with a $250,000 cash prize, a Birkin handbag and a Rolex watch, because the $11.5 million minimum for the house giveaway was not met.

Ny Breaking Australia has contacted Jacenko’s representatives for comment.

Last month Jacenko said that she promised to personally refund all 7,489 people who signed up for her much-discussed branding bootcamp after the heated conflict.

“There were not enough funds in the company’s account to pay the first prize winner, so I personally loaned the company money so that the company could pay off significant creditors and have sufficient funds in the company’s accounts to pay the $250,000 prize,” she claimed at the time.

“I loaned the company over $100,000 to ensure that the company had sufficient financial resources.”

“I was unable to issue refunds through Shopify as Mr Tleis is the only one with access to the NAB account the funds are in. He revoked my access to the company bank account,” she added.

While Jacenko expressed regret over her participation in the business venture, Messrs Tleis and Alaouie also apologized on social media for the failed contest.

“Our main concern has always been you, the public, and especially those who participated and bought a ticket for this promotion,” they stated.

‘We sincerely apologize to all of you. We fought as hard as we could and were even willing to make personal commitments to support our fight.

“We would like to express our deepest regret for entering into this partnership with Ms. Jacenko. It has been an incredibly challenging and eye-opening experience. We offer our sincere apologies.”

When Judge McGrath appointed provisional liquidator Cathro & Partners last month, he described the promotion arrangement as “highly questionable”.

“The competing interim requests arise from the extraordinary circumstances of the rapid establishment and almost equally rapid deterioration of relations between Ms Jacenko, Mr Tleis and Mr Alaouie over a business venture involving the promotion of training courses offered by Ms Jacenko to the public, using a highly questionable promotion system,” he said.

‘Whichever way you look at it, the promotion has received significant negative publicity… this has led to online commentary that is highly derogatory towards the promotion itself and the people involved in it.’