Letter of opinion draws wide support, view not shared by deathly DCHL

ODT 9.1.16 (page 6)

odt-9-1-16-letters-to-editor-pillans-p6-1

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Advertisements

11 Comments

Filed under Aurora Energy, Business, Central Otago, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, DVL, DVML, Economics, Education, Electricity, Finance, Geography, Health, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, OAG, Ombudsman, ORFU, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Queenstown Lakes, Resource management, SFO, Sport, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, Travesty

11 responses to “Letter of opinion draws wide support, view not shared by deathly DCHL

  1. Gurglars

    Just which of Mr Pillans’ declarations were wrong as Mr Crombie surmises?

    Was the date wrong, perhaps his signature, or maybe he got the wrong address.

    Otherwise Mr Pillans seems to have had a birthday, a slasher, a cracker, an undoubted winner even an epiphany, a state which unfortunately seems excluded from the emotional uttering of Crombie, Cull and certainly Grady Cameron, the three C’s, you know the word it’s unfortunately de rigeur since Germaine Greer, but it starts with C and ends rhyming in a T.

  2. russandbev

    I should have taken the time to stop and interrupt Mr Crombie from his lawn-moving duties in Clyde to ask him which of Mr Pillans’ comments were incorrect. I wish I had seen the letter and reply, but of course the indefensible has no defence by definition – has it?

  3. Observer

    Great letter Mr Pillans. Respectfully however, the … “$20 million loss at Christchurch, subsequently made a $13 million loan” … is not accurate in terms of the only $7 million minimum loss this depicts.

    Delta has already lost / written off over $11.7 million as reported in Delta’s media statements and financial reports of 2015. The $11.7 million recorded as a “doubtful debt” in 2015 reports, was subsequently written off, and so would equate to a far higher debt and loss in today’s reality. $20 million is likely closer to the loss if the $13 million is recovered.

    Delta’s total losses not only relate to “non-payment for infrastructure works” as Delta and DCC initially depicted.

    Delta’s losses also relate to Delta’s illegal purchases of parts of Gold Band Finance Ltd’s first mortgage. Delta paid $3.39 million for the illegal part purchases in August 2013 and March 2015 (Delta media statement 3 March 2016). This was a financial investment as opposed to a debt relating to infrastructure works completed.

    These illegal purchases amounted to 67.5% of the first mortgage, however Delta and DCHL did not divulge that fact and instead deceived the Council and the public that Gold Band was in charge of the first mortgage and mortgagee sale and falsely stated there was … “no relationship, financial or otherwise, between Delta and Gold Band” … (Graham Crombie public response to questions from Crs Hilary Calvert and Lee Vandervis).

    Delta’s Security Sharing Agreement with its partner Gold Band also required Gold Band to do as Delta instructed such that Delta illegally controlled the mortgagee sale as a subordinate ranking party.

    The first mortgage with interest had grown to about *$8.4 million by the time of the Delta controlled first mortgagee sale in August 2016 to Infinity Yaldhurst Ltd (*source: Gold Band’s lawyer acting for Gold Band and Delta).

    Delta’s 67.5% share of the first mortgage was therefore $5.7 million. The infrastructure debt owed was a different matter and additional to this first mortgage investment debt.

    Delta in its deal with Infinity Yaldhurst, accepting just $0.9m cash in the sale (plus a $12.2m second mortgage), means that $4.8m of its $5.7m first mortgage security was re-invested within the $12.2 second mortgage to Infinity Yaldhurst (ODT 23 Sep 2016).

    This $0.9m cash plus $12.2m second mortgage ($13.1m total to Delta) less the $5.7m first mortgage debt due to Delta means that Delta is now only pursuing $7.4 million in relation to its historic infrastructure works debt.

    The question that needs answering is why did Delta collude with Gold Band and Noble Investments Ltd to cheat the existing residents of their known higher ranking prior interests in the subdivision when providing for them in the mortgage sale, or otherwise, would have returned a far better result for Delta and DCC ratepayers?

    Had Delta accommodated the residents’ prior known interests the residents would have (and had offered to) remove their caveats protecting their interests so that Delta could convert their additional agreements for first mortgages, of around $17 million, as well as their $5 million second mortgage, into first ranking first mortgages of around $23 million. (The caveators had also offered this solution to the Dunedin City Council prior to their vote to accept the Infinity Yaldhurst deal).

    Delta (and DCC) needs to answer why they instead:-
    1/ chose to write off over $12m (and possibly $20m) debt; and
    2/ to NOT have a $23m first mortgage plus additional debt owing for unpaid works? Or alternatively, ownership of the 26 hectares of substantially developed land that Delta had physically developed and financed?
    3/ Why did Delta chose to take massive losses and to cheat Dunedin ratepayers and the original landowners to favour other parties?

    Official Information requests about Delta’s agreements with Noble for first mortgages are not being answered by either Delta or DCC. This matter and the losses need investigating.

    • Elizabeth

      Which exactly shows, Observer, why it is so difficult for the Public to follow ‘Delta Yaldhurst’ shenanigans – particularly, if people are unfamiliar with high finance or indeed just rely on light mainstream media breeze-overs of happenings (via no contest of media releases isued by guilty parties and the so-called authorities). It is hideously complicated. Your in-depth knowledge is greatly appreciated here.

      With more information at his finger tips, Ian Pillans would well understand.

  4. Observer

    Some parts of this “Delta Yaldhurst” fraud that you call “shenanigans”, Elizabeth, is surely not so difficult for the Public to follow? :-

    Graham Crombie and Grant McKenzie together, responding to the Public’s elected representatives Hilary Calvert and Lee Vandervis, FALSELY advised them and the Public that … “there was no relationship, financial or otherwise, between Delta and Gold Band…”.

    Court evidence and records show this to be a lie and that Delta and Gold Band were joint venture partners together with Noble Investment Ltd since 2009, and that Delta and Gold Band had a financial security sharing relationship which had been kept secret.

    This lie should be simple for the Public and media to understand? The security sharing agreement with Gold Band had been designed and drafted by Delta’s lawyers to defeat the known prior and caveated interests of the original landowners. The caveats are mentioned in the agreement and documents of how to defeat them. In simple and legal terms, “to cheat a person of a known prior interest” is a “constructive fraud”.

    Delta referred in media releases to the caveats protecting these known prior interests as … “obstacles to remove” … ; or translated simply means “caveats to defeat or known interests to cheat”.

    Delta media statement 19 February 2016 :- … “A successful conclusion of the sale by the first mortgagee will remove the main obstacle to the subdivision being put onto the Market and Delta beginning to recover its outstanding debt.”

    What Delta was lying and deceiving about was that DELTA WAS the 67.5% first mortgagee and that DELTA WAS in full control of the first mortgage and the first mortgagee sale. Delta also had full knowledge of the prior interests and caveats (“obstacles”) BEFORE Delta partnered up with Gold Band and Noble and invested in the subdivision behind the caveats/obstacles.

    Yes Delta’s spindoctors’ spin is readily absorbed in “light mainstream media breeze-overs”, and then by “unfamiliar Public”. The “no contest” to this spin by these “guilty parties” is because the “contest” is that Delta and its partners are guilty of constructive fraud and mainstream media won’t investigate or print that contest!

    • Elizabeth

      I hear you. Not everybody reads What if? Dunedin or MSM, Observer.

      • Observer

        I understand Elizabeth, they read mainstream media.
        However mainstream media only print the spin of those that are corrupt and not the other side and the evidence of that corruption. I’ve offered that evidence and invited them to investigate it.

        • Elizabeth

          The climate has now changed thanks to the monstrous Aurora/Delta scandal. Time to reapproach Dunedin media – but remember no one down here employs senior investigative journalists ie those with high end analytical financial, critical business or criminal reporting ability. So what you need is good storytelling based on graspable fact, that can put the issues across very clearly and economically without losing your readers – allowing media to publish in short bursts. Richard Healey has good skills in this kind of delivery and Vaughan Elder in particular has carried the newsworthiness well to interest the general public. It’s about selecting language and sound bites. This is different from courtroom parade.

  5. photonz

    Even giving Delta management the benefit of the doubt (that they are grossly incompetent rather than grossly corrupt), anybody in a position of power who defends them shows up their own incompetence (or corruption).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s