One.Tel collapsed in 2001; ASIC failed to prove its case against directors
One.Tel Ltd · Telecom
The case in brief
Visible before detection
Checks that could have surfaced it, on hindsight
Unit economics & burn
Would have shown cash burn per subscriber against the funding plan.
Can mislead when: Cost allocation is a judgement call. Kubr shows its assumptions and lets the user change them.
Operating-metric verification
Would have tested reported subscriber and revenue metrics against billing data.
Can mislead when: Contract staff do not appear in EPFO. Vahan access needs licensed APIs. Some businesses have no physical trace.
Governance signals
Would have flagged the quality of board reporting on cash.
Can mislead when: Private companies file late, so these signals are lagging. Kubr uses them to support other flags, not to prove anything alone.
Where Kubr services would have helped
Valuation context
Offered in India- C9 Would have shown cash burn per subscriber against the funding plan.
- C11 Would have flagged the quality of board reporting on cash.
Financial diligence
Offered in India- C9 Would have shown cash burn per subscriber against the funding plan.
- C10 Would have tested reported subscriber and revenue metrics against billing data.
Model check
Offered in India- C9 Would have shown cash burn per subscriber against the funding plan.
- C10 Would have tested reported subscriber and revenue metrics against billing data.
Portfolio monitor
Offered in India- C10 Would have tested reported subscriber and revenue metrics against billing data.
- C11 Would have flagged the quality of board reporting on cash.
Mapped from the checks each service runs. A hindsight reading of public records, not a promise that the failure would have been found.
Same pattern
A summary of public documents. It reports what the sources say. It is not Kubr's finding and not a statement of guilt.