The resolution came days after Netcomm asked the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to shut down aaNet for debts dating back to January.
Netcomm's original statutory demand for payment -- dated 15 June and seen by ZDNet Australia -- lists an amount of slightly over AU$49,000, although additional legal costs are understood to be involved.
"The winding up order had the desired effect -- aaNet have paid their debts and the matter is now closed," Netcomm managing director David Stewart said.
However, aaNet spokesperson Lorraine Rose told ZDnet Australia the issue was settled for AU$30,000 three days ago.
But turbulent times continue for the minnow ISP. aaNet will today face fellow ISP and client Exetel in the District Court of New South Wales.
The aaNet-Exetel saga began in April when some 4,000 Exetel ADSL customers were left stranded without Web access. At the time aaNet claimed the disconnection occurred because Exetel had not settled its bills.
Exetel will today attempt to recover AU$310,000 it estimates Telstra charged it to reconnect the ADSL users, in addition to interest and court costs.
Neither ISP would comment on the impending proceedings, but it appears as if popular broadband information Web site Whirlpool has been caught in between. The site has removed all forum postings relating to the debate.
Whirlpool editor Phil Sweeney told ZDNet Australia his site had been threatened with legal action by aaNet after a reader posted a link to a document on the ASIC Web site.
"aaNet believe that was posted maliciously," he said, "and with intent to cause damage. They're threatening us with legal action if we continue to allow that information to be posted on Whirlpool. So we have decided to stop discussion on that particular topic until we get further legal advice."
"This is not the first time," he said. When the debacle first erupted, both ISPs threatened to sue Whirlpool so the community-driven site started redirecting readers to the companies' own forums.
aaNet would have to prove the imputation that intent to harm was caused by the posting of the link on WP. And they'd have to be under 10 staff in strength. Otherwise they can't sue for defamation (in NSW anyway).
Seems a dangerous precedent to set, trying to stifle legitimate consumer comment.