09/09/2026
How did ASIC allow the Bathla group to grow into a 542 company empire with billions in liabilities before the collapse?
The Bathla collapse demands far more than questions for managing director Bhart Bhushan, his brother and co owner Rajinder Mohan, and the other directors. It demands serious answers from the regulators who were supposed to be watching.
With reportedly 25,000 homes at stake and the Bathla business spread across hundreds of separate companies, how was this allowed to reach such an enormous scale before the alarm bells became deafening? And there is another major concern. In NSW, home building compensation cover generally does not protect residential buildings over three storeys, potentially leaving apartment buyers without the same safety net available for lower rise construction. Responsible construction companies face licensing requirements, financial reporting and regulatory scrutiny. So what scrutiny was applied to Bathla? What warning signs appeared? Why were hundreds of separate companies being used? And if financial problems were developing years ago, why wasn't decisive action taken earlier?
That brings us directly to ASIC.
What did ASIC know, when did it know it, and what did it do about it? If compliant builders are expected to open their books, meet their obligations and withstand regulatory scrutiny, Australians deserve to know how a property empire of this complexity could accumulate billions in liabilities while home buyers, subcontractors and creditors were left exposed. The directors must answer for their decisions, but the watchdogs must also answer for their watching.