You are wrong again Mr. Jones. The Receivers did provide the full advertising and subscription databases to a number of interested parties.
Fact 1: A very concerned interested party emailed me the full set of databases on 4th Sep 2006, so I know that this action ocurred.
Fact 2: I immediately sent the following email (this is the exact copy) to the receivers (appointed of course by Mr. Jones)
Fact 3: The receivers reply is pasted below.
Fact 4: The estimated 8 interetsed parties now have the databases in excel spreadsheets to send to whoever they like with no chance of being traced. They were sent to parties outside of New Zealand as well, so I doubt very much the receivers interest or ability in enforcing confidentiality agreements with people they have never even met in other countries.
Sent to Lloyd Hayward 04.09.2006
Subject: Valuable files distributed publicly by MMH
Hi Lloyd,
I am extremely concerned at your actions in handing over the attached detailed valuable records that essentially amount to a large portion of the goodwill value of the KPI magazine. I attach files that I received recently after you emailed to them interested party/s. The files contain intimate detail of all advertisers and subscribers down to postal address and email for the entire business.
I have also been informed that these files have directly/indirectly have found their way into the hands of KPI’s direct competitor and as a result a group of interested buyers have now withdrawn from any further interest in purchasing the KPI magazine on the basis that the subscriber and advertiser records are no longer confidential.
These actions I expect on your firms part will substantially reduce both the interest in and sale value of the KPI assets to the detriment of creditors and shareholders.
Please immediately confirm;
o Why such detailed files were sent?
o All the parties they were sent to?
o That you personally met with them all and confirmed them as legitimate purchasers?
o Why you have so willingly handed over the most important records of the business without consideration as to the consequences.
What you are selling here Lloyd is databases. That’s the value if you had not figured it out, and now you have just given them all away for free to be emailed to all sorts of interested parties. I am at a loss to understand how MMH expects to justify such actions. I would expect that they would have only been provided prior to settlement to the purchaser and a high level summary e.g. number and value of subscribers and advertisers was all that was necessary to interested parties.
Please explain?
Regards,
David Hows
Lloyds reply 05.09.2006
David
Any higher level company information provided to potential purchasers has been supplied pursuant to signed confidentiality agreements. Remedies are available if such information is misused by the recipient.
Prospective purchasers quite rightly expect to receive complete information as to a company's operation in order to maximise their bids.
Please advise the name of the prospective purchaser you say withdrew. I am aware of one party who has withdrawn and the reasons you put forward are not those given to me for that party's withdrawal. I know of no other party who has expressed interest to me and withdrawn for the reasons you put forward.
I have given undertaking of confidentiality to prospective purchasers and will not disclose names.
You allege such disclosure has reduced value. My opinion is that disclosure has supported that value. Without such disclosure interested parties assessment of value would have been significantly less than those we have received.
Whatever value is achieved it is unlikely to effect shareholders or unsecured creditors. There are three secured creditors and preferential creditors who have priority rights to payment in accordance with the Receiverships Act 1993 and Companies Act 1993. Even if we were to achieve value at or about the high range of value as per the Grant Thornton valuation of December 2005 there is unlikely to be any funds available for unsecured creditors or shareholders. Your assertion that our actions have directly effected unsecured creditors and shareholders is unfounded and refuted.
All secured lenders have been advised of the sale process and progress to date. They have not expressed any dissatisfaction whatsoever.
for Paper Ventures Limited (In Receivership)
L J Hayward
Receiver
Meltzer Mason Heath
PO Box 6302
Wellesley Street
Auckland
New Zealand
027 241 6566 Mobile
+64 9 357 6150 phone
+64 9 357 6152 fax
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
www.mmh.co.nz <http://www.mmh.co.nz>
As for the stolen intellectual property from Peter Spam and Cairns Lockie that I refered to in my earlier post one only has to call William Cairns at Cairns Lockie or contact Peter Spam at his contact details in the URL above and ask them if this theft ocurred. I am sure it's still fresh in their minds.
David Hows
www.realestatemagazine.co.nz
Fact 1: A very concerned interested party emailed me the full set of databases on 4th Sep 2006, so I know that this action ocurred.
Fact 2: I immediately sent the following email (this is the exact copy) to the receivers (appointed of course by Mr. Jones)
Fact 3: The receivers reply is pasted below.
Fact 4: The estimated 8 interetsed parties now have the databases in excel spreadsheets to send to whoever they like with no chance of being traced. They were sent to parties outside of New Zealand as well, so I doubt very much the receivers interest or ability in enforcing confidentiality agreements with people they have never even met in other countries.
Sent to Lloyd Hayward 04.09.2006
Subject: Valuable files distributed publicly by MMH
Hi Lloyd,
I am extremely concerned at your actions in handing over the attached detailed valuable records that essentially amount to a large portion of the goodwill value of the KPI magazine. I attach files that I received recently after you emailed to them interested party/s. The files contain intimate detail of all advertisers and subscribers down to postal address and email for the entire business.
I have also been informed that these files have directly/indirectly have found their way into the hands of KPI’s direct competitor and as a result a group of interested buyers have now withdrawn from any further interest in purchasing the KPI magazine on the basis that the subscriber and advertiser records are no longer confidential.
These actions I expect on your firms part will substantially reduce both the interest in and sale value of the KPI assets to the detriment of creditors and shareholders.
Please immediately confirm;
o Why such detailed files were sent?
o All the parties they were sent to?
o That you personally met with them all and confirmed them as legitimate purchasers?
o Why you have so willingly handed over the most important records of the business without consideration as to the consequences.
What you are selling here Lloyd is databases. That’s the value if you had not figured it out, and now you have just given them all away for free to be emailed to all sorts of interested parties. I am at a loss to understand how MMH expects to justify such actions. I would expect that they would have only been provided prior to settlement to the purchaser and a high level summary e.g. number and value of subscribers and advertisers was all that was necessary to interested parties.
Please explain?
Regards,
David Hows
Lloyds reply 05.09.2006
David
Any higher level company information provided to potential purchasers has been supplied pursuant to signed confidentiality agreements. Remedies are available if such information is misused by the recipient.
Prospective purchasers quite rightly expect to receive complete information as to a company's operation in order to maximise their bids.
Please advise the name of the prospective purchaser you say withdrew. I am aware of one party who has withdrawn and the reasons you put forward are not those given to me for that party's withdrawal. I know of no other party who has expressed interest to me and withdrawn for the reasons you put forward.
I have given undertaking of confidentiality to prospective purchasers and will not disclose names.
You allege such disclosure has reduced value. My opinion is that disclosure has supported that value. Without such disclosure interested parties assessment of value would have been significantly less than those we have received.
Whatever value is achieved it is unlikely to effect shareholders or unsecured creditors. There are three secured creditors and preferential creditors who have priority rights to payment in accordance with the Receiverships Act 1993 and Companies Act 1993. Even if we were to achieve value at or about the high range of value as per the Grant Thornton valuation of December 2005 there is unlikely to be any funds available for unsecured creditors or shareholders. Your assertion that our actions have directly effected unsecured creditors and shareholders is unfounded and refuted.
All secured lenders have been advised of the sale process and progress to date. They have not expressed any dissatisfaction whatsoever.
for Paper Ventures Limited (In Receivership)
L J Hayward
Receiver
Meltzer Mason Heath
PO Box 6302
Wellesley Street
Auckland
New Zealand
027 241 6566 Mobile
+64 9 357 6150 phone
+64 9 357 6152 fax
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
www.mmh.co.nz <http://www.mmh.co.nz>
As for the stolen intellectual property from Peter Spam and Cairns Lockie that I refered to in my earlier post one only has to call William Cairns at Cairns Lockie or contact Peter Spam at his contact details in the URL above and ask them if this theft ocurred. I am sure it's still fresh in their minds.
David Hows
www.realestatemagazine.co.nz
Comment