Has anyone talked about the tax side of the Bluechip deals in here ? I have a view that teh properties acquired by investors are arguably (in some cases) on revenue account making the losses deductible.
-
Last edited by Matt Gilligan; 10-09-2009, 05:44 PM. -
Matthew, How is it that Mark Bryers owes you money?
Were you acting for him, with him, against him with other investors?Comment
-
Say he is bankrupted - is it likely that he would be required to retun from Oz and reside here under the eye of the OA. Or is it pretty easy to get dispensation to "work" overseas?
Good on you MG for following through with this. There are many others who would llike to but who don't have the $'s (or the energy) left to pursue bankruptcy through all of the steps - knowing that Bryers has a habit of stringing things out by any means possible - which only makes it even more expensive.
I suspect 8 October will draw more than just a few interested spectators in Court. Do keep us all updated in the event things take a turn....
CTComment
-
What comes around goes around.
Originally posted by outspoken View Post
I was acting against him, through a family Trust (related to me).
In 2007 I warned investors publicly that I thought some of his schemes were tax avoidance. The independant reported it front page, and his share price dropped.
His reaction was to sue me for millions of dollars for defamation. It is what you call a gagging writ, - the "victim" screams crocodile tears and goes to court to scare me, the "victim" has deep pockets so I am supposed to be afraid and back off. I know BC did this with heaps of professionals speaking out in public concerned about their investments. We in fact referred to their investments (behind the scenes) as " Blue Shit" with clients, and pulled god knows how many out of them.
Instead I explained to them that my opinions were honestly held and spoken in public interest, and I was right. 100% right, and therefore I thought their litigation was a great idea because it would bring to the public eye what a pile of crap their investments were, and give me a soapbox to talk about it in the media. Bluechip promptly withdrew when they realised I was going to turn their claim into a media circus.
Amusingly BC's lawyer approached us after the incident ( impressed by us calling their bluff so aggressively), and asked if we would act as his accoutnant ! We declined. )
I can't emphasie how revolting their CEO and some of their management team were to deal with. Insincere, arrogant corproate pigs, - you have no idea. They really rated themsleves and I told them that I did not believe a word they said, that their tax and legal advisors provided 'purchased' opinions to suit their purposes, and their products were crap. We know this as a fact....from talking to employees of organisations providing the opinions.
They withdrew their claim and life moved on.
I thought to myself if I cross paths with the BC people I dealt with or Bryers again, I would go out of my way to try to remove them from the commercial gene pool in NZ. ( If I got a chance.) I am involved in a lot of commercial litigation and enjoy scrapping. It like a good game of chess in many ways.
Last year someone ripped off by Bryers approached me, going broke as a result of his antics. They had a non disputed debt but could not afford to enforce it. So I purchased the debt, obtained summary judgement, and have now pressed for bankruptcy.
What comes around goes around.Last edited by Matt Gilligan; 11-09-2009, 05:23 PM.Comment
-
Great, Thanks for the answer, and bloody good on you!Comment
-
Summary judgment: GE gets judgment against Bryers for 3 flash cars
Defendant: Mark Bryers, Sydney
Applicant:GE Finance & Insurance
Other details:Associate Judge Sargisson gave an order for summary judgment for $432,500 plus $11,500 costs – but no interest – on GE’s bill after it repossessed & sold 3 expensive late-model cars Mr Bryers had bought.
Counsel for GE, Mark Frogley, said GE didn’t tot up the interest bill because Westpac NZ Ltd had already got an $11.2 million summary judgment order against Mr Bryers and had filed a bankruptcy notice against him.
Mr Bryers was managing director and held the controlling interest in the Blue Chip Financial Solutions group (parent company Northern Crest Ltd, listed on the ASX but suspended from trading since February 2009.
In August, he was convicted on 4 charges brought by the Ministry of Economic Development’s national enforcement unit, was remanded with a not-guilty plea on a further 69 and his since had another 4 charges added.
Related story: GE gets judgment against Bryers after selling his 3 luxury carsComment
-
Loss for GE as judgement looms
Loss for GE as judgement looms
By GREG NINNESS - Sunday Star Times Last updated 05:00 13/09/2009
GE Finance and Insurance Group, a lender on a number of projects promoted by collapsed investment company Blue Chip, has reported a $151.6 million loss on its New Zealand operations in the year to December.
The loss was fuelled by a $103.9m impairment charge mainly due to bad debts in its lending business and a $113.8m goodwill writedown after it closed its local Wizard Home Loans operation and exited the motor vehicle finance business.
Although GE has since restructured its New Zealand operations, it still faces some uncertainty because of a high court case brought against one of its subsidiaries by Whangarei couple Bruce and Dorothy Bartle.
The Bartles are disputing GE's ability to recover from them several hundred thousand dollars it advanced to finance an investment scheme devised by the infamous Blue Chip group. If the Bartles win their case, it could expose GE to litigation from several dozen other Blue Chip investors in a similar situation to the Bartles. That could potentially expose GE to further losses of tens of millions of dollars, but it has made no provision for such an eventuality in its 2008 accounts. A decision on the Bartle case is expected shortly.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/2858...udgement-loomsComment
-
Who are the brains behind Blue Chip Bryers? (Who’s their lawyer?)Originally posted by Matt Gilligan View PostComment
-
MG Quote: "I can't emphasie how revolting their CEO and some of their management team were to deal with. Insincere, arrogant corproate pigs, - you have no idea".
Any names, apart from Bryers, whom you remember dealing with????Comment
-
Apparently a
pensioner gets his money back from a Blue Chip Licensee
but I can't access the news item.Comment
-
Pensioner gets money back from Blue Chip licensee
Kelly Gregor | Friday September 18 2009 - 03:20pm
A 75-year old widow got her Blue Chip investment back by taking one of its licensees to court in a landmark case that awarded her $204,465.79.
Beryl Joyce Breeze took legal action against VPFS Financial Planners after losing huge amounts of money on a Blue Chip investment.
The financial advisers did not defend the case.
Institute of Financial Planning president Lyn McMorran said the case had set a precedent and the industry could expect to see more legal action against financial advisers.
“I would like to know how the advice was given. As I understand it, an elderly lady was advised to take a second mortgage on her home. That does not sound like good advise.”
“We want to see good financial advice given on a professional level by qualified professionals who work to a code of ethics and standards.”
The court's decision to award Mrs Breeze money in her claim against VPFS is the first time a Blue Chip investor has been compensated.
The matter involves an investment Mrs Breeze made on the advice of VPFS. Judge Simon France’s judgment said other parties such as legal advisers were originally involved in the claim but those matters have been settled out of court.
The claim brought against the financial planners was primarily based on VPFS’s negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Justice Simon France said the defendant (VPFS) had “indicated it does not wish to be involved in the proceedings and will take no steps to defend it.”
Justice France gave the defendant’s counsel, Philip Ross, leave to withdraw. Mr Ross said his client had made a decision not to defend the case as it felt it was in its best interest to do so.
In an affidavit provided by financial adviser Andrew Guest, who provided a testimony for Mrs Breeze, he stated the investment Mrs Breeze made into Blue Chip was risky and an unwise step for anyone to make, especially someone on Mrs Breeze’s position.
Mrs Breeze was interested in conservative funds and ones aimed at modest income returns. Mr Guest said the planners should have clearly explained the risks in writing to Mrs Breeze.
Justice France said, “It is apparent that the advice Mrs Breeze received was wholly deficient for the circumstances. The defendant (VPFS) has been Mrs Breeze’s adviser for some years, and knew her position and her investment profile.
“It was an unsuitable investment for her, and obviously so. Even if everything went well, the maximisation of gains was some years down the track. Bearing in mind Mrs Breeze’s age and immediate needs, it was not an appropriate investment. It put at risk her one significant asset, namely her home.”
Justice France awarded a principal sum of $194,998.50 and further damages of $9,467.29 to cover the amount due on the mortgage between the date of the hearing at and the judgment.Comment
-
Thanks hedonist.Comment
-
-
Why strange???
I once saw a "financial plan" put together by the principal (VP) of this company and questioned why, as well as the investment in Bluechip, other recommendations involved finance companies, including Bridgecorp, which were paying well over the odds, and to the seasoned financial planner, seemed risky.
The short answer was that the returns were good, and the commission paid was the best in the market. No mention of a risk profile, the risk versus return analysis etc. As regards putting a financial plan in place for his clients, he openly stated that he did not want the client to have all the information on a particular product/investment, in case the client asked too many questions, and he would lose the sale.
IMO the man was arrogant and was only after promoting his own best interests (i.e. commission). Whether it was him who dealt with this particular case, or one of his advisers, it is pretty obvious that the mindset started at the top.
I hope others take up the case against him and others like him.Comment
-
The decision to not contest the case.Originally posted by BTDT View Post
I wonder if they're good for $200k?
Or maybe they have indemnity insurance?Comment
Comment