ALF - Allied Farmers Limited

[minimoke]

Hi Minimoke.

I assume you are referring to http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU130...e-sheppard.htm or similar story. Saying something untoward is one thing. Proving ones words with evidence is another.
I still wonder where the case the SFO has been building against them for years has gone.
Refer http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/fin...-video-5114890

I Agree - an SFO case would be a much higher standard of guilt than a defamation proceedings.

However there are two simple defences to defamation. One is that that the what was said was pretty much the truth. The other is its an honest opinion based on fact. The Shareholders association, it si reported , have said that shppards statements were incorect. So resumambly lacking in fact and or truth.

The $540k creditor has still not reached the brink yet.
Does the creditor want the money, or the asset? When the crunch comes they may just want the money.
Further, if the said creditors calls are unreasonable, then a court may elect that marshalling will come into play.

Has the fat lady finished cleaning her teeth yet?

Again it is simple. The creditor wants their money. Thats what they are entitled to and as long as their claim is legitimate there is nothing unreasonable about it. If ALF can't provide the money then some other means of settlement might be arranged. It is conceivable it might arrange the transfer of the asset but I think improbable.

Make no mistake, ALF is at the brink and they are toppling over. The only remaining question is if someone will throw a life line.

I am not sure what this "marshalling " is you refer to. In a liquidation there is a clear order of people who get paid. And IRD is up there

[Balance]

I Agree - an SFO case would be a much higher standard of guilt than a defamation proceedings.

However there are two simple defences to defamation. One is that that the what was said was pretty much the truth. The other is its an honest opinion based on fact. The Shareholders association, it si reported , have said that shppards statements were incorect. So resumambly lacking in fact and or truth.





Again it is simple. The creditor wants their money. Thats what they are entitled to and as long as their claim is legitimate there is nothing unreasonable about it. If ALF can't provide the money then some other means of settlement might be arranged. It is conceivable it might arrange the transfer of the asset but I think improbable.

Make no mistake, ALF is at the brink and they are toppling over. The only remaining question is if someone will throw a life line.

I am not sure what this "marshalling " is you refer to. In a liquidation there is a clear order of people who get paid. And IRD is up there

Right on, Mini - there is absolutely nothing unreasonable about creditors who have supplied goods and services to a company wanting to be paid. Especially when the fat cat directors are still racking in the fees.

There is also absolutely nothing unreasonable about a secured lender enforcing their security.

Lange government used statutory management to circumvent the rights of secured creditors after the 1987 crash and worsen the situation for all - prolonging NZ's economic misery by at least 2 years.

We need the equivalent of Chapter 11 in NZ to manage situations like this.

There are parts of ALF worth salvaging - parts which could be sold and creditors and lenders paid.

Meanwhile, are the directors trading recklessly?

Garry Charles Bluett Chairman
Jeffrey Keenan Independent Director
Philip C Luscombe Independent Director
Andrew McDouall Independent Director

[J R Ewing]

forgive me if I am wrong but I take it the next announcement from ALF will include the words recievership or liquadation, why are the share's trading at 1.5cps, I would of thought 0.01 cps would be more fair value given the situation.

Some optimists see a faint mist of condensation on the outside of the glass and perceive a glass half full.

[Balance]

forgive me if I am wrong but I take it the next announcement from ALF will include the words recievership or liquadation, why are the share's trading at 1.5cps, I would of thought 0.01 cps would be more fair value given the situation.

Feltex was trading until the very last day.

Likewise, Provenco.

[minimoke]

Has hotchin thrown them a $100k life line. Now it's time to see ird off.

[Vaygor1]

Right on, Mini - there is absolutely nothing unreasonable about creditors who have supplied goods and services to a company wanting to be paid. Especially when the fat cat directors are still racking in the fees.

Hi Balance.

Not sure if the creditor is owed money for goods and/or services which normally form an unsecured obligation to pay.
Sounds to me like it's for a loan as it was secured.

In this case, it may be that ALF has sold the asset against which the loan is secured. Assuming this to be the case, and according to what I read they (ALF) just haven't got their money for it yet ie. it hasn't settled. Also from what I can tell ALF appear confident that their business case can sustain the payback scheme under the original intent and spirit of the loan agreement.

Looking at ALF's P&L and balance sheet, $500k is a pittance. It really would be a straw that breaks the CAML's back. Pulling $100 - $500k out of an asset with a holding value of $0 would seem to back this up.

[minimoke]

Seems if this is being secured then the IRD problem may be heading towards settlement as well, just hasn't been stated yet. Why settle one when the other will result in liquidation/insolvency? It could be kicking the can down the road, but better than just capitulating I guess.

Trouble is they have only raised $100k in cash and still owe IRD $3.7m. Presumably ALF is now in the penalty zone with IRD so they will be stacking up at a great rate of knots. Also it seems they have written of $3.5m in assets and perhaps transferred those zero rated assets to the unnamed creditor in exchange for the $100k. In liquidation / receivership I recall there is the ability to wind back transactions - I wonder if it will be one of those?

[Balance]

The same Andrew McDouall who is principle of McDouall Stuart, the investment advice firm and former brokers?

Yes, who charged $500,000 in fees for putting the two dogs = 1 turkey together.

As is often said, how can anyone soar like a eagle when he is stuck with a turkey on the ground?
I wonder if Mr McDouall was the one who recommended the sawmilling business to be bought by ALF?

[J R Ewing]

Trouble is they have only raised $100k in cash and still owe IRD $3.7m. Presumably ALF is now in the penalty zone with IRD so they will be stacking up at a great rate of knots. Also it seems they have written of $3.5m in assets and perhaps transferred those zero rated assets to the unnamed creditor in exchange for the $100k. In liquidation / receivership I recall there is the ability to wind back transactions - I wonder if it will be one of those?

At best, it looks like they are ripping up the floorboards to keep the fire going.

[Vaygor1]

The same Andrew McDouall who is principle of McDouall Stuart, the investment advice firm and former brokers?

Yes, who charged $500,000 in fees for putting the two dogs = 1 turkey together.

As is often said, how can anyone soar like a eagle when he is stuck with a turkey on the ground?
I wonder if Mr McDouall was the one who recommended the sawmilling business to be bought by ALF?

Your memory serves you well Balance. McDouall was appointed to the board of ALF in October of 1999 so would almost certainly have been involved in the sawmill fiasco/farce.

Wasn't this the $500k of work performed by a firm he had a reasonable percentage of ownership in at the time, and was quizzed/roasted by shareholders at an ALF AGM a few years back due to his non-disclosure of the work as a related party transaction while an ALF director?

A shareholder of a close acquaintance of mine enjoyed the grilling McDouall got at the AGM and was very disappointed that such a horse could drive his cart through the related party (or remuneration of directors) disclosure rules.

No matter how he might have made up for this in other ways, I can't figure out what on earth he is still doing there. Maybe it's because no one else would want the job.