donner
08-07-2004, 09:17 PM
One has to wonder if this article refers to a once famous, now infamous, ex-rugby league star and some property developments down Remuera Rd way. Though it needs to be said, the article says the bankruptee is an individual whereas in the case of the developer going bust case I am thinking of was a company.
The SFO case stems from a complaint received on 2 April 2003 about a fraud allegedly committed against creditors of a now-bankrupt individual, who cannot be named without breaching the High Court's suppression orders.
It followed the individual inviting his creditors to vote for a proposal under Part 15 of the Insolvency Act.
Creditors were offered 15 cents in the dollar. But they were suspicious about a late-reported debt, Justice Heath said in his judgment. The debt apparently stemmed from an agreement by the debtor, allegedly made in February 2001, to acquire property. This debt was alleged to total $14.9 million.
To have his proposal accepted by creditors, the individual required the support of half his creditors by number and creditors representing 75% of the debt's value.
"The late appearance of a debt of this magnitude, one likely to alter the voting dynamics at the meeting, caused some consternation to other creditors," Justice Heath said.
Some creditors believed the debtor had colluded with someone friendly to his interests and struck a fictitious deal aimed at providing the alleged creditor with enough votes to get his proposal accepted.
http://www.theindependent.co.nz/story2.html
The SFO case stems from a complaint received on 2 April 2003 about a fraud allegedly committed against creditors of a now-bankrupt individual, who cannot be named without breaching the High Court's suppression orders.
It followed the individual inviting his creditors to vote for a proposal under Part 15 of the Insolvency Act.
Creditors were offered 15 cents in the dollar. But they were suspicious about a late-reported debt, Justice Heath said in his judgment. The debt apparently stemmed from an agreement by the debtor, allegedly made in February 2001, to acquire property. This debt was alleged to total $14.9 million.
To have his proposal accepted by creditors, the individual required the support of half his creditors by number and creditors representing 75% of the debt's value.
"The late appearance of a debt of this magnitude, one likely to alter the voting dynamics at the meeting, caused some consternation to other creditors," Justice Heath said.
Some creditors believed the debtor had colluded with someone friendly to his interests and struck a fictitious deal aimed at providing the alleged creditor with enough votes to get his proposal accepted.
http://www.theindependent.co.nz/story2.html