Receivers show $6,000,000 error
April 7, 2011 | 
Author I find it somewhat surprising that a director of a company does not know what the company is worth.
Both Anthony John MCCULLAGH and Stephen Mark LAWRENCE are the receivers for Tony Tay film Limited . they are also directors of Auckland film studio in which Tony Tay film is the majority share holder.
Yet as Directors of the Auckland film studio ( in which the Auckland rate payers have a significant stake ) they were unaware of the value of the company and incorrectly represented the value in the receivers first report
This morning I received a phone call from mr Lawrence who advised me that a new report would be published and sent me a copy of the corrected values. he also told me that I was on a witch hunt.
the amended report will be filed in 20 days time after the ir request to remove the first report and substitute it with a second is advertised in the public notices.
So here is a preview of the amended figures
the question has to be How can directors and receivers get it so wrong what checking do they do on the reported figures.. none by all accounts.
These guys have been directors of Auckland film since 28 Feb 2011 , Their interest is not in the long-term survival of Auckland film studios their interest is to secure as many assets as possible for the person appointing them who in this case is the person charged with running the studios.
If he has sent the corporate undertakers in what interest has he got in the long-term health and well-being of Auckland film.. to me all it looks a bit counter productive.
If I had a company in which the job of 2/3 of the directors was to plunder it for assets I would be concerned.
I would be further concerned if the person I was employing as on site manager of the operation was the person who had engaged these directors and they are effectively working for him and then make an error of a mere $6 mil
I’m not in this for a witch hunt .. but since no one in council is asking the questions that I have you wonder about who actually cares about our assets.
Guess we can all pay a few more $ in rates. as long as the rich get richer the plebs can keep paying.
Posted in accountability
The below is intresting….
http://www.mvp.co.nz/articles/by-mcdonald-vague/'friendly-liquidators'—a-further-discussion
Registration of Insolvency Practitioners
The one thing upon which many professionals agree is the need for the registration of insolvency professionals. As it stands, at the present time a liquidator needs no academic qualifications, no training and no experience. The only requirement is that the liquidator must not be less than 18 years old, must not be a creditor, must not be a director, must not be a bankrupt, and must not be committed under the Mental Health Act. No positive attributes whatsoever are required.
Hi Paul thank you for your comment on transparency.
Yes you are right those are the only qualifications that they need. I even had a case where the liquidator did not exist. Charges over alleged fake liquidator
If you are a creditor you do have the ability to object in the initial period and ask for an independent liquidator to be appointed. It is common practice for companies who go into voluntary liquidation ( usually to beat creditors to it ) and appoint their own tame liquidator. The assets are then generally sold on to a colleague at rock bottom price and we are back to business as usual but look no more debt!