Blue Chip related stuff here, please.

[Brutus]

Bryers Back in Business!

Sources indicate Bryers is back in business in Australia and selling properties at a profit of over A$100k - he is not bankrupt over there apparently - maybe its time people questioned the OA why he is not bankrupted over there under the mutual agreement.

Anyway someone should contact the news media in Sydney - there is a "Fair Go" type programme - also some of the tabloids would love a story on this crook.

A complaint to the Australian Trade Practices commission should be made.

[muppet]

Expect GE to fight

By Maria Slade
4:00 AM Sunday May 9, 2010
Bruce and Judy Bartle. Photo / Martin Sykes


Finance company GE is likely to appeal a court decision that its loans to two retired Blue Chip investors are "oppressive".
Last week the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Whangarei couple Bruce and Judy Bartle, who face losing their home after GE lent them more than it was worth to invest in Blue Chip.
The case has significant implications for over 200 other victims of the failed Blue Chip property investment scheme.
The Bartles' lawyer, Paul Dale, said he was expecting an appeal. GE would only say last week that it was "carefully considering the judgment".
The Bartles, on an income of $22,000 a year, ended up borrowing $630,000 against their $400,000 home and an Auckland investment unit that ultimately sold for just $250,000.
They had believed that apart from an initial loan of $137,000 Blue Chip would take care of any additional funding.
The Appeal Court said the pensioner couple were effectively borrowing to pay themselves a small income stream, and Blue Chip was "clipping the ticket at every point".
"This was such an utterly mad-headed - and oppressive - transaction that even Nelson with a telescope to his blind eye could have seen it as such."
GE argued it was the "innocent" lender because it had no association with Blue Chip and the loans were arranged through an intermediary company. But the court said a retired couple buying an investment apartment funded entirely by mortgages over their home and the apartment "should at least have put GE on inquiry".
An appeal of a second case brought by Dale on behalf of Blue Chip investors has yet to be heard.
Last year, the High Court ruled that a representative group of people who invested in three central Auckland developments through Blue Chip could not get out of their sale and purchase agreements on the apartments.
Through Blue Chip, the investors put down a deposit on the yet-to-be-built apartments and were paid for the use of their funds.
They were told that Blue Chip would purchase the apartments on completion and they would never have to own them.
But when Blue Chip collapsed in February 2008 the investors were left liable. The units have now been completed and the developers want to settle.
Meanwhile, Blue Chip victims are preparing to descend on the Auckland District Court next week, where the scheme's co-founder Mark Bryers will be sentenced on 31 charges brought by the Ministry of Economic Development. It is understood he may escape a prison term.
Carol Corner, 74, of Tauranga plans to attend court to "see him get his just deserts".
By Maria Slade

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10643658

[SCOUSE]

May the 20th is just going to be another day that the Justice system in NZ is nothing but a big joke Bryers will walk away smiling and all the others involved with him will be laughing there heads off

[muppet]

Victim wants jail time for Mark Bryers

By David Fisher
4:00 AM Sunday May 16, 2010
Mark Bryers. Photo / Doug Sherring


Mark Bryers this week faces sentencing for 31 offences related to the collapse of his Blue Chip empire - with one investor saying only jail will do.
Bryers is due to jet in from Sydney for Thursday's hearing at Auckland District Court after pleading guilty in February to the charges laid by the Ministry of Economic Development.
Now bankrupt and owing $173 million, his failed investment scheme cost 3000 Kiwi investors about $80m.
Jack Hoggard is among those planning to attend the hearing, and has prepared a victim impact statement for court.
Hoggard, who was contracted to sell Blue Chip properties, brought in 77 investors and played a role in bringing down the company. He said the financial toll on him and those he brought into the scheme was "horrendous".
And he was disappointed only one charge carried a possible prison term, with the rest punishable with fines of $5000 to $100,000.
"It's wet bus ticket material, really."
Full details of the charges were available for the first time this week after the Herald on Sunday obtained access to the court file.
The charge for which he could be imprisoned related to him flying to Australia two days before he was legally obliged to face creditors in Auckland.
Other charges reveal director's responsibilities he failed to meet. They included failing to file accounts for companies as required by law and failing to complete financial statements.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10645256

[muppet]

What about us? The Blue Chip nightmare continues
By ROB STOCK - Sunday Star Times Last updated 08:47 16/05/2010


Photo: The Press
Christchurch Blue Chip victim Helene Philpott says she was pressured into signing a reverse mortgage.

For Blue Chip victims Bruce and Judy Bartle the nightmare looks like ending after their decisive appeal court victory this month, but for others who buckled under the pressure, the judgement may have come too late.
Blue Chip lured hundreds of elderly investors into mortgaging their homes to buy overpriced rental apartments. But when Blue Chip collapsed, they found themselves saddled with huge debts and their lender threatening to sell their homes from under them.
The Appeal Court has now ruled the Bartles' loan contract predatory and "oppressive", which is likely to release them from some, if not all, their obligation to repay $630,000 to giant mortgage lender GE.
Barrister Paul Dale, who represents more than 200 Blue Chip victims, said the judgement had "significant precedent value" for those looking to oppose attempts by the lenders to collect their loans, but there is a second class of Blue Chip victims who have a tougher fight ahead.
They are the investors who have already been pressured to sell their homes to repay lenders – mainly GE or Challenger – or who were persuaded to refinance their loans and continue to shoulder the burden. Among them are Elizabeth and James from Christchurch, aged 66 and 72, respectively (they asked their last name not be used), who after suffering a dramatic health crisis and cash crunch – they were being charged interest of $2000 a month on an income of little more than $1800 – sold their home to clear a mortgage to Challenger.
They are being pressured for $1 million to settle on three apartments Blue Chip sold them off plan. "We are hoping to be able to claim some money back, but we would have to do that through a lawyer and that would mean more money we do not have," said Elizabeth. "I feel the government should do something."
But while the government may be bailing out some finance company investors and is chipping in to fund leaky building repairs, Elizabeth has given up on hopes MPs will do anything to support Blue Chip victims, even though former National Party MPs Wyatt Creech and John Luxton were both directors of Blue Chip when Elizabeth and James signed up. "We looked at the board of directors and saw them and that gave us confidence in the company."
Helene Philpott from Christchurch, aged 72, says she was pressured by GE into refinancing with a "reverse mortgage" which allows her to stay in the house until she dies, meaning GE will ultimately sell the house for its gain.

She said: "They more or less forced me to sign it because on the back it has something saying my house would be taken by the court for a mortgagee sale if I did not sign." But she says she entered the new agreement "without prejudice" meaning she was not acknowledging the first loan through Tasman Mortgages was legal. Although she does not know how, she has vowed GE will never see a cent of the money she owes them.
Some Blue Chip victims are so incensed at being rorted that they say they will go beyond the law to ensure Challenger and GE do not get their money. One told the paper: "They'll never get this house. Before they do, I will cancel the insurance and burn it down."
Dale said among the more than 200 Blue Chip victims he represents were several who had sold up, or remortgaged.
The constant pressure Blue Chip investors feel under cannot be underestimated, said Hamilton Blue Chip victim Ron Jensen, and he knew of many who had buckled.
"I live in fear. My heart rate goes up every time I see a stranger coming up the drive," he said. Jensen fears no-one will go into bat for those who sold their homes and are now living in rented digs, with no chance of rebuilding their lives.
"They have got no redress. That's what I am worried about. A lot of people have refinanced to try and get lower interest rates, or have sold up. Immediately they have done that, they have made a new agreement, and they have let Challenger and GE off the hook."
Dale says the concept of estoppel – a new contract wiping out an old one – relies on the signatory knowing their full legal rights. "We have got some in that position, but in general we have been advising people not to sell up, though for some people it was all too hard."
The question of how to fight for those people will be addressed as the legal position became clearer, as would those who still have mortgages with GE and Challenger.
"If we have to fight each [demand for repayment], we will. I think there will probably be a responsible approach by everyone to avoid litigation." That would mean some compromise, or negotiated settlement process, but Dale said the bottom line for clients was to save their homes.
GE, which may yet appeal the Bartle case, and Challenger, while both continuing to compound interest on loans, are holding off on forcing mortgagee sales. Neither would comment on its next move.
HOW THE JUDGES DESCRIBED BLUE CHIP

JUSTICE GRANT HAMMOND
"Blue Chip... was particularly targeted at older people experiencing income problems, but who had equity in their homes. This can fairly be described as a kind of predation. For persons such as the Bartles, the scheme was inherently defective and fraught with risks."
"[Blue Chip was] an investment scheme which was overly elaborate, poorly drafted and explained, and had no apparent business plan. It was hopelessly over-dependent on a distinctly rising real estate market. Even assuming the scheme went according to plan ... the principal beneficiary would be Blue Chip. All there was in this scheme for the Bartles were fortnightly payments of $451, which they had borrowed to pay themselves, and the prospect of 10% of any capital gain after four years on [apartment] unit 701. For this they were placing their freehold home on the line."
"Just about everything that could be a fundamental error in the joint venture agreement was present in it."
"GE failed to look into the transactions which were vital for the loan to be serviced, and hence were indifferent to the Bartles' ability to meet their obligations."
JUSTICE TERRENCE ARNOLD
"GE... knew the Bartles' ages from the outset. The purchase by an older couple of an investment apartment funded entirely by mortgage finance secured against their home and the apartment should at least have put GE on inquiry. Nevertheless, where such long-term loans are being contemplated, the lender needs to look closely at the borrowers' circumstances. This GE manifestly failed to do."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/3703...mare-continues

[speights boy]

Assuming he only gets fined for these MED charges, can immigration stop him from returning to Australia until they are paid?

SB

[cube]

Investors in failed finance company Blue Chip packed out a courtroom this afternoon to see Mark Bryers sentenced to 75 hours' community work and a fine of $37,490, plus court costs.

Bryers pleaded guilty to 34 charges relating to book-keeping and record-keeping failures, as well as failing to attend a creditors' meeting.

Blue Chip collapsed in 2008, owing around 3,000 investors more than $80 million.

It was standing room only in the public gallery at the District Court in Auckland as investors watched Bryers take his seat in the dock.

Judge Chris Field asked for the court doors to be opened to allow more people to view the proceedings.

"I regret we have rather a small courtoom," he said.

Ministry of Economic Development lawyer Chris Woolford said the Crown would seek a sentencing starting point of a fine of $70,000 and 100 hours of community service.


Mr Woolford said the charges were not fraud charges.

"We cannot place any link between charges that Bryers has pleaded guilty to and Blue Chip."

He said despite Bryers' bankruptcy, a fine was still appropriate.

Mr Woolford also told the court the Ministry agreed Bryers' sentence should be discounted by 20 per cent for his early guilty plea, which drew muttering from the public gallery.

However, Bryers' lawyer Aaron Lloyd argued that the fine should be $55,000.

He opposed a community service sentence, saying it would be unfair and unjust because Bryers was no longer living in New Zealand and could mean he would lose his job in Australia.

"His failings have been public failings and he has definitely lost a lot," he said.

Bryers was heckled by out-of-pocket investors as he walked into court for sentencing this afternoon.

Dozens of aggrieved investors shouted "scum," "low life" and "thief". One said he wished he had taken eggs to throw.

Tauranga investors were among those headed to Auckland to attend today's sentencing.

Spokeswoman Suzanne Edmonds said the investors sent 200 pages of victim impact reports to the court.

"Reading the impact statements as they have come in has only hardened our resolve to see this country deliver some justice to the victims," she said.

She said Bryers, who was was declared bankrupt in October, was "living a handsome and apparently luxurious life" in the Rocks area of central Sydney.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10646234

[Wayne]

Interesting to see how he manages the community service. I suppose he wanted a bigger fine because, as a bankrupt, he wouldn't pay it anyway.

[Perry]

Are you sure fines are liquidated by bankruptcy?
.

[Davo36]

Slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket for what he's done.

[Perry]

One might fairly compare it with
BlueKiwi's plaintiff cry, here.
.

[graemeh]

Are you sure fines are liquidated by bankruptcy?
.

I think the answer is yes and no.

My understanding is:

Fines imposed prior to the bankruptcy can be wiped as part of the bankruptcy.

Fines imposed after he has been declared bankrupt are not wiped as part of the bankruptcy.

I'm not sure how that is supposed to work in practice though. Perhaps he needs to be bankrupted twice?

[donna]

Personally I don't think the punishment fits the crime and it sends a 'we will go easy on you' message. People go to jail for far less - you can see why some people feel they just have to take matters into their own hands.

I wonder what the 'community service' will be? And if he'll be stalked by his victims!

Cheers,

Donna

[SCOUSE]

I have always said he would walk away smiling now whos turn is it to get the peanuts for the judge

[graemeh]

Don't forget the crime he has been convicted of is basically just poor paperwork.

He has not been charged with fraud which is what people seem to be judging him on.