Christchurch City Council : Highly Dubious Entity #YaldhurstSubdivision

Subject: Ongoing Property Dispute at Yaldhurst Subdivision

Christchurch City Council held a full council meeting on 27 July 2017.

Readers, the CCC meeting video of Agenda item 26, about Yaldhurst Subdivision, is recommended viewing/listening.

Legal advice to Council is given by Rob Goldsbury, CCC Head of Legal Services – an atrociously lacklustre, unjust and obstructive performance.

The Council stupidly steps itself into (again!) the Constructive Fraud Action being progressed at the Christchurch High Court by Residents/Caveators of the Yaldhurst Subdivision. Although, we see that Councillors supposedly have no idea they’re already in it up to their eyeballs through the actions of Council staff and issues of non-compliance. Interesting.

Christchurch City Council Published on Jul 26, 2017
Christchurch City Council VIDEO
27.07.17 – Item 26 – Yaldhurst Village Subdivision – Dedication of Road – Sir John McKenzie Avenue

The video continues at about 1:26 after a preliminary silence [muted blue screen] – keep watching. The quality of picture is poor throughout. The discomfort of those seen in the public gallery is most perceptible.

Meeting Agenda and Unconfirmed Minutes follow here below – minus Attachment A, Yaldhurst Village Lots 601,613 Plan.

The Council did not vote unanimously.

The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board motion was lost.

With the second motion, in short, the Council resolved that Lots 601 (residential) and 613 (commercial) on LT 448725 will be dedicated under Section 349 of the Local Government Act 1974 as a road, in order for the road to vest.

The resolution goes against the Residents’ private property rights.

See the previous post to refresh on the Residents’ situation.

Note, by the votes for, the dishonesty and incompetence present.

Note, by the votes against, the integrity of those supporting the Community Board and members of their community: the private property owners (the Residents), in their protracted, brave and courageous fight against an unjust malevolent council staff working in cahoots with unscrupulous developers.

Vicki Buck is a class act.
Rob Goldsbury, an utterly shameful man.

****

Christchurch City Council
Agenda

Notice of Meeting:
An ordinary meeting of the Christchurch City Council will be held on:

Date: Thursday 27 July 2017
Time: 10.05am
Venue: Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

….

[agenda item]
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

26. Yaldhurst Village Subdivision – Dedication of Road – Sir John McKenzie Avenue ………. [page] 529

[the report]
Council
27 July 2017

Report from Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board  – 13 June 2017
 
26. Yaldhurst Village Subdivision – Dedication of Road – Sir John McKenzie Avenue
Reference: 17/733313
Contact: Richard Holland richard.holland@ccc.govt.nz 941 8690
 
Note that this report was left to lie on the table at the Council meeting on 6 July 2017.
 
1. Staff Recommendations
 
That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommend to the Council:

1. That Lots 601 (residential) and 613 (commercial) on LT 448725 will be dedicated under Section 349 of the Local Government Act 1974 as a road, in order for the road to vest.

2. Note that a Deed of Indemnity will be executed by Infinity Yaldhurst Limited which will indemnify and keep indemnified the Council from all actions, proceedings and claims made by any land owner in relation to the Council accepting the dedication of Lots 601 and 613 on LT 448725, as road.

3. Also note that the Council shall not be required to issue a Section 224(c) Certificate under the Resource Management Act 1991 in respect to Lots 601 and 613 on LT 448725 until all the safety audit requirements as specified by the Council, and included in the Variations of the subdivision consent, have been physically built to the Council’s satisfaction.

4. That the General Manager City Services be delegated authority to negotiate and enter into on behalf of the Council, such documentation required to implement the dedication.
 
2. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Recommendation to Council
 
Part A

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommend to the Council:

1. Option 2 of the staff report, namely, That the Council not agree to a dedication process and inform Infinity Yaldhurst Limited to pursue the matter through the Courts in accordance with the Property Law Act.
 
2. That the Council agree to meet with the adjoining property owners to discuss options on a way forward regarding the Yaldhurst Village Subdivision.
 
Vicki Buck and Anne Galloway requested that their votes against the above decision, be recorded.
 
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.

Delta | Infinity | CCC staff collude to defeat Yaldhurst residents (again)

Yaldhurst Subdivision (former Noble Subdivision)

S T A T E ● O F ● P L A Y

Christchurch City Council is failing to ensure compliance with the subdivision consent and is then assisting the developer Noble/Delta – Infinity/Delta, to screw the Yaldhurst residents.

[click to enlarge]

****

About five of the affected Yaldhurst residents gave deputations to the full meeting of the Christchurch City Council on Thursday, 6 July 2017.

Prior to the meeting, the Infinity Joint Venture of which Delta is a majority partner (with its $13m gift investment from Dunedin City Council) had convinced CCC staff to sway Christchurch City councillors to vote for the dedication of private roads as opposed to vesting ownership in the Council. This in the attempt to first defeat land covenants the affected residents have over the property registered in 2003 to protect their inclusion in any subdivision. However, Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) cannot accept roads vesting in ownership with the Council when there are any encumbrances on the land – such as the residents’ covenants.

For the residents, Colin Stokes, at the council meeting, distributed to councillors a review of what CCC staff have done over the years.

Of course, as the facts flow they continue to entwine around Delta.

The residents are fighting to protect and enforce their rights in the subdivision consent; and to halt Delta and their Southern associates’ onslaught against them.

****

Received from Colin Stokes (Yaldhurst resident and caveator)
Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 9:16 a.m.

Thanks for your ongoing support Elizabeth

Chris Hutching’s piece (The Press 10.7.17) is weak and void of facts that present our case.

● We have Land Covenants registered over all the land in 2003 to protect our inclusion in any subdivision – our specific Access Lot road has to be formed and vested to Christchurch City Council standards with CCC as a term of extinguishment of the covenants.
● The encumbrance on the land prevent vesting of roads as LINZ won’t allow roads to vest with the council with them on.
● Infinity/Delta behind closed doors with CCC staff came up with a scheme to dedicate the roads under old rules (not compliant with the RMA and the subdivision consent) so as to circumvent our covenant protection.
● The real story is that CCC is breaking rules and NOT requiring compliance with the subdivision consent so as to cheat the residents of their protection and their interests protected by that protection so as CCC and the developer can cut them out of the subdivision.
● CCC and the developer Noble/Delta – Infinity/Delta have taken conditions out of the consent, varied the consent, and permitted non-complying undersized infrastructure that makes our part of the subdivision impossible – specifically stormwater pipes and basins required on the lower lying developers’ land which is where the consent (and physical topography and site layout) requires our stormwater to go.
● CCC failing to enforce the conditions of the consent as the law requires means our Access Lot road cannot be formed, meaning we can not subdivide.
● Delta with the misuse of mortgagee powers passed the property to itself, or at least part of the property ($13.4m of an $18.35m “sale” = 73% of which $12.5m was left in the property in passing it to Infinity in the orchestrated “sale”).

[ends]

****

Prepared Summary and Review with subdivision plans as tabled at Christchurch City Council’s meeting (6 July), to assist understanding:

███ D 2017 07 04 Summary and Review of Circumvention of Covenants for Councillors Yaldhurst (16 pages)

1 Plan RMA92009135

2 Plan RMA92009135 hlite

The coloured plan shows the residents’ Access Lot between green lines going from Yaldhurst Rd and then dog-legging east to west. What is inside the yellow border is what is within the Subdivision Consent (note there is an internal yellow small 2 sites that are NOT in the consent – and 3 other of the residents’ lots in common ownership on the NS leg are not included in the consent).

It is this east west leg of the Access Lot that requires widened roading to enable the Lots each side to be subdivided pursuant to:-
– 2002 Agreements for sale and purchase (and 2008 further agreement)
– 2003 Registered Land Covenant Protection [see Summary and Review, page 1 para 2 for terms of extinguishment]
– 2009 Subdivision Consent (Condition 5 and stormwater Conditions for it 9.) [see Summary and Review, page 5 para 12]

The problem is
– the Security Sharing Joint Venture (Noble/Delta/Gold Band) SSJV designed and constructed their part of the subdivision such that it made the East West Access Lot owners (residents) parts of the subdivision impossible AND that the Council permitted this.

– Undersized stormwater infrastructure was corruptly installed without consent to NOT include the residents’ subdivisions (all the while falsely assuring residents it did).

– The stormwater is required to be on land the residents transferred to the developer in return for this stormwater and other provisions. It is required to be there for numerous reasons including physical and legal reasons;
* Residents transferred the land in return for this provision
* 2003 Land Covenants protect this land for that provision (required for the Access Lot Road to be formed and vested)
* 2009 The Subdivision Consent requires it to be on the developers’ land (Condition 9.5 which “disappeared”) [see Summary and Review, page 5 para 12 and page 10 email 16 Feb 2010]
* Residents that are part of that subdivision consent have the legal rights to the stormwater (s134 RMA) – the Council is refusing to enforce the conditions of the consent; and permitted the developer to NOT comply with the conditions.
* Land topography and layout physically requires it to go there. The land slopes High NWest to SEast Low

– Delta went ahead and constructed the infrastructure without legal consent – [see Summary and Review, page 10 email 22 Aug 2012]
* This is akin to a builder building a house without consent.
* Council failed to issue an abatement notice for works being complete without consent, and to non-complying standards.

For all the Council staff failings, and the consent holders and JV partners’ failings and corruption of making the residents parts of the subdivision impossible:-
– Delta/Infinity and Council staff are recommending to the Elected Council to vote to circumvent the residents’ Land Covenants so:-
* the residents roading and subdivisions will no longer be protected and will be impossible;
* the JV Infinity/Delta will make more profit by not having to comply with the conditions of the consent that requires the residents’ roading and inclusion (as above)
* Council staff “mistakes” and wrongdoing of permitting non-complying works and not enforcing the conditions of the consent (as required by law) will be covered up.

– Delta and DCC was the facilitator of transferring the property from the Delta/Gold Band/Noble Joint Venture to the Delta/Infinity Joint Venture.
– Delta (illegally) owned 67.5% of the 1st mortgage and controlled Gold Band through their Security Sharing JV.
– Delta’s assurances it had nothing to do with the mortgagee sale is a lie.
– Delta refused to allow Gold Band to accept offers to redeem the 1st mortgage (illegal under s102 & s103 Property Law Act).
– DCC refused to allow redemption of the 1st mortgage.
– DCC (and Delta) refused to accept assignment of the 1st mortgage when Colin Stokes and another (as parties with interests in the land entitled to redeem) offered it to them
* had they done, Delta could have registered about an additional $16m in agreements to mortgage they were sitting on
* all that was required in return was “our little road” which is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT of the subdivision consent in any event.

[ends]

As reported by The Press, the eight-year dispute involving the stalled Yaldhurst subdivision has now gone to mediation between the property owners and the developers.
The dispute has been aired in several High Court cases between the private landowners and the developers, which are continuing.

Related Post and Comments:
11.7.17 Delta has deep fingers into 8-year subdivision dispute at Yaldhurst

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *aurora*, *grady*, *luggate*, *jacks point*, *dchl*, *auditor-general*, *noble*, *yaldhurst* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Delta has deep fingers into 8-year subdivision dispute at Yaldhurst

Blind Justice (detail) by Beeler – Columbus Dispatch 2016 [caglecartoons.com]

****

### Stuff.co.nz Last updated 17:37, July 10 2017
Delta and Infinity’s Yaldhurst subdivision dispute at mediation
By Chris Hutching – The Press
An eight-year dispute involving developers and a group of property owners in a stalled Christchurch subdivision has gone to mediation. Late last year Dunedin City Council agreed to authorise its Delta Utilities company to refinance a $13.4 million outstanding debt to go ahead and complete the Yaldhurst development along with Wanaka-based developer, Infinity. To allow the development to proceed, Christchurch City Council staff recently recommended the unusual step of “dedicating” the access road rather than “vest” it with the council. But a representative of the private property owners, Colin Stokes, told city councillors that his group’s rights to compensation for land for the road had not been addressed. […] The dispute has been aired in several High Court cases between the private landowners and the developers, which are continuing. Most people who originally signed up to buy properties at the subdivision have pulled out and meanwhile Christchurch’s residential property market has cooled significantly.
Read more

****

Related Posts and Comments:
15.6.17 Site Notice : post(s) removal [we heard from Steve Thompson’s solicitors]
4.3.17 Christchurch housing : ‘If you build the right thing, buyers will still come’
17.2.17 Gurglars visits the Delta/Noble JV subdivision at Yaldhurst
2.2.17 Hilary Calvert complaint to Auditor-General #DCHL
30.12.16 Hilary Calvert on Deloitte report for Aurora/Delta
12.12.16 Deloitte report released #Delta #Aurora
7.12.16 Audit and Review, Deloitte
26.9.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #14 : The Election and The End Game revisited
22.9.16 DCC : Delta deal 1 Aug 2016 Council meeting (non-public) #LGOIMA
9.9.16 Calvert on DCC, ‘We could have a much more democratic and transparent operation of council’
2.9.16 Delta Yaldhurst : Local Opinion + Update from Caveators via NBR
18.9.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #13 : Councillors! How low can you Zhao ?
26.8.16 Delta #EpicFail —EpicFraud #12 : The Buyer Confirmed
24.8.16 Delta peripheral #EpicFail : Stonewood Homes —Boult under investigation
8.8.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #11 : The Buyer
3.8.16 LGOIMA requests to DCC from Colin Stokes #Delta #Noble #Yaldhurst
1.8.16 Delta #EpicFail —The End Game according to CD
31.7.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #10 : The Beginning of the End : Grady Cameron and his Steam Shovel
29.7.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #9 : The Long & Winding Road…. Leads Back to Delta’s Door
21.7.16 Delta EpicFail #8 : Cr Calvert goes AWOL, 23 Questions for Mr McKenzie —Saddlebags !!
19.2.16 Delta: Update on Yaldhurst subdivision debt recovery
17.7.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #7 : The Long & Winding Back Road
15.7.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #6 : What do you mean, Property Law Act ?
12.7.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #5 – Delta and the ghostly hand of Tom Kain
8.7.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #4 : Tales from the Courtroom….
30.6.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #3 : Security Sharing and not Caring….. who’s got that Constricting Feeling ?
27.6.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #2 : WWTKD – What Would Tom Kain Do ?
5.6.16 Delta #EpicFail —Noble Subdivision —Epic Fraud
13.3.16 Delta #EpicFail —Noble Subdivision : [rephrased] Conflict of Interest
11.3.16 Delta peripheral #EpicFail : Stonewood Homes and ancient Delta history
6.3.16 Delta #EpicFail —Nobel Subdivision : A Neighbour responds
29.1.16 Delta #EpicFail —Yaldhurst Subdivision ● Some forensics
21.1.16 Delta #EpicFail —Yaldhurst Subdivision

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *aurora*, *grady*, *luggate*, *jacks point*, *dchl*, *auditor-general*, *noble*, *yaldhurst* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #14 : The Election and The End Game revisited

Received from Christchurch Driver [CD]
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 at 11:15 p.m.

Firstly, Ratepayers have a debt (yes another one, readers, but put the cudgels away, it doesn’t involve money illegally advanced by Delta) to Vaughan Elder, Cr Hilary Calvert and our What if? site for prising the official information about the August 1 2016 Council Meeting from the DCC. After an extended delay, some records were produced, but “technical difficulties” meant a full audio transcript was not available. How surprising. This is the Council equivalent of “The dog ate my homework, sir”, with the same level of credibility. But of course Mayor Cull will be able to say that he really wanted the transcript because, of course, he is FOR openness and transparency in Council, for the next fortnight anyway —because in response to the latest poll or subtle expression of displeasure from the ODT publishers, Mayor Cull is now a “transparency magnet”, you see.

While it would have been useful to see if any Councillors expressed even the most cursory concern about the deal, before voting to give away $13.2M to a shell company on the most favourable terms in commercial history, the key point is that Cr Lee Vandervis is the only candidate standing who sounded the alarm. He abstained from even voting on the proposal because the information put before Councillors was so pathetically incomplete that to even vote on it was giving the “proposal” more credibility than it deserved.

Departing from Matters Noble for a moment, your correspondent had from afar noticed a very clear divide on ‘the sound’ between sitting and new council candidates. To a man (and one woman) the sitting Councillors all sing the same song : everything is fine, everything is under control at the hands of your capable (sitting) Councillors and if these “whingers” would stop the “negativity” then everything would move from fine to fantastic on the DCC rate-o-meter. With the notable exception of the sniping between Mr Whiley and Mr Hawkins, there is clearly a little gentlemen’s agreement amongst incumbents not to say hard but truthful things about each other so that normal sycophant operation can resume after the election.

However, the other 32 council candidates are also singing a song that is mostly in unison, and that is that the present Council have failed the city in ways too numerous to count. Their description of the overall Council performance ranges from the mediocre to the abysmal.

With six new positions, in a normal election a candidate could probably spout vague but reassuring platitudes and have a good chance of joining the club. But this is not a normal election and the vast majority of new candidates aren’t being shy about what needs to change. A change is coming.

The point of all this : Your correspondent says that this is no time for the safety first status quo and if the best candidates only include one (Cr Vandervis) or even two then that is just fine. Vote accordingly. Mr Vandervis as Mayor can always run night classes over the first month in how to chair a subcommittee.

Your correspondent has for some time flayed the vast majority of Councillors in many posts for being slack jawed bystanders on the whole disgusting Delta Noble mess. Those Councillors who acquiesced and made like Silent Bob – which is all of them, except Cr Vandervis, do not merit re-election on a number of levels. Most odiferous of all is Cr Doug Hall, who is very well versed in subdivisions, and would never in fifty lifetimes commit his own money to a deal like this, but who refused to say anything. Sayonara, Doug Silent Bob Hall !!

However, some information from a little bird….
has come to light regarding the non-public section of the fateful August 1 Council meeting. This, along with other information made public at What if?, now means we have an accurate idea of why this turnip of a Delta deal was fertilised into life. (Sorry Vaughan, bested you again, but keep up the good work !).

It was a case of turnip councillors also being fertilised with you know what, but it was also a case of DCHL and DCC bureaucratic fascism, which is even more alarming.

Apparently, a senior representative at the meeting (can’t name names) lectured the Councillors for about 30 minutes that this Infinity deal was The Way, The Truth and will give Life to the half of the $25M DCC debt that the DCC had not written off. To extend the biblical analogy further, however, it would not be three days before the debt was resurrected, but EIGHT YEARS. (Good work on that in Friday’s ODT, Vaughan !!). This is rather a long time to go without financial oxygen, otherwise known as payment of interest, but at Delta (now enabled by the DCC) the unthinkable (the illegal construction of entire subdivisions, being had up for constructive fraud) is now commonplace.

What if? is led to understand that Councillors were lectured like school children, and questions were Not Tolerated by the Irascible Headmaster. They were to vote on the One True Option, and That Would Be That, and if they did not vote for the One True Option, the buyer of the Noble Subdivision would be lost.

Readers may recall that your correspondent did predict that this is precisely what would happen, a certain corporate person would pronounce that There Is No Alternative, regardless of the truth, and much of the statements by the Irascible Headmaster (not to be confused with The Fat Controller) are not true.

A malodorous other person also enabled this fertilisation, as a parting gift to fellow “managers” – and I use the term loosely.

For major decisions, DCC staff are meant to prepare a range of options so Council can debate which is best. Either they weren’t bothered or came under instruction to prepare one option only by minders at DCHL. The Council should remember it is DCHL’s superior, and (theoretically….) DCC’s senior executives should be monitoring the Council holding company and subsidiaries. Old habits (like saying yes) are troublesome things that become reflex actions.

Humour aside, what happened on August 1 and immediately following is simply anti-democratic and makes Councillors redundant rubber stamps for DCC staff. The amazing thing is that only two of the 15 elected complained about this obvious and basic sidelining of Councillors.

But even at that point Ratepayers could have possibly accepted a lack of proper process had a good option been presented. But the “Delta Deal” isn’t a good option. This is the most commercially one-sided deal seen in decades, and the level of excuses made by Crs Thomson and Cull, Delta CEO Cameron, and most of all Mr Crombie, should give Ratepayers pause. They protesteth too much. The cover has been in full swing. “This is the best we can do”, “there are no guarantees”, “it will take years…. but builders are lining up to buy the sections”.

If The Fat Controller fitted one of his own conservative clients into this deal – a $13.2M second mortgage on a subdivision mired in legal action and half built illegally, at an interest rate of 7 per cent, he would doubtless be censured and taken to task by his professional body.

Something appears to be rotten in the State of Dunedin. Why is there indecent DCHL directorial haste to get this deal done ? Will Infinity Yaldhurst spend vast sums on marketing the sections via the ODT ? Will certain ex DCC operationals retire to Wanaka, coincidentally on an Infinity Subdivision ? Will Mr Crombie and Mr Frost become directors or shareholders of some Infinity venture, or their firms be remunerated in some generous way at Noble ?
Stay tuned, same bat time, same bat channel !…..

There is a way to stop this rot, to stop the sale to Infinity and bring the entire subdivision back under the control of the DCC. Council was not able to vote on the actual terms and conditions of the disgraceful $13.2M second mortgage at the August 1 meeting. This will be done by the new Council after the election. The solution is obvious. Don’t give the money to Infinity and the whole deal will fall over, then the DCC can appoint its own development manager and sell down the sections that are ready now, and start selling the commercial land, which is the real cash cow of the deal. Without a doubt Council would recover all of the $25M debt, and get interest on it as well. This amount would pay a great proportion of the South Dunedin flood control work……

This is too hard for your turnip DCHL directors, and involves a serious loss of face, but who cares about them ? With the right development manager the DCC can do it in house. There is one man in Dunedin who is available at the end of the year and has the necessary integrity and expertise to do it, and his name is Geoff Plunket, soon to be former CEO of Port Otago and Chalmers Property.

[ends]

—

Related Posts and Comments:
22.9.16 DCC : Delta deal 1 Aug 2016 Council meeting (non-public) #LGOIMA
18.9.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #13 : Councillors! How low can you Zhao ?
26.8.16 Delta #EpicFail —EpicFraud #12 : The Buyer Confirmed
24.8.16 Delta peripheral #EpicFail : Stonewood Homes —Boult under investigation
8.8.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #11 : The Buyer
1.8.16 Delta #EpicFail —The End Game according to CD
31.7.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #10 : The Beginning of the End : Grady Cameron and his Steam Shovel

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *infinity*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered ion the public interest.

*Images: Lee Vandervis billboard detail by whatifdunedin | The Fat Controller from Thomas the Tank Engine

DCC : Delta deal 1 Aug 2016 Council meeting (non-public) #LGOIMA

Updated post
Tue, 27 Sep 2016 at 7:08 p.m.

On 1 August 2016 I lodged an official information request with DCC to obtain documents and audio file for the non-public meeting of Council held that day to decide Delta’s deal with “Infinity” (later, properly referred to as Infinity Yaldhurst Ltd. NOTE: Not the company called Infinity Investment Group Holdings Ltd. The information request was made subject to an extension. (In particular for more context, see Delta posts at What if? Dunedin from 1 August onwards – to access these use the term *delta* in the search box at right).

—

The information received from DCC is published here.

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Minutes of Council meeting August 1
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 21:26:24 +0000
From: DCC Governance Support
To: Elizabeth Kerr

Dear Elizabeth,

Further to Kristy’s response below, please find attached a copy of the minutes of the meeting. These are now confirmed as correct.

Regards
DCC Governance Support

Attachment: Minutes Council 010816

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: FW: Please check LGOIMA response on Delta PE documents and audio file
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 20:48:01 +0000
From: Kristy Rusher
To: Elizabeth Kerr

Hi,

In relation to your request for the information about the Council’s decision regarding the Delta & the Noble Subdivision, we now provide you with:

1. The audio recording and transcript of the non-public section of the 1 August council meeting where this transaction was considered. Please click on this link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jcvhpn0w2a7v1n7/AADWTnaiJcP3R0YA-dZuuo1Ya?dl=0

2. A copy of reports presented as part of the non-public section of the August 1 council meeting where the Delta transaction was discussed.

3. The minutes of this part of the 1 August Council meeting are not yet included. That is because at yesterday’s meeting of the Council, an amendment was made to this section of the minutes. They will be provided to you in their amended form when the minutes of yesterday’s meeting become available.

The information you have requested is attached. Please note that due to the late conclusion of yesterday’s Council meeting we were unable to provide you with this response yesterday.

Audio Recording of Discussion at Council Meeting

There were some technical difficulties experienced with the recording of the meeting. Unfortunately this resulted in only the first part of the meeting up until the first adjournment being recorded. We have sought expert help to recover the rest of the recording but it is blank.

An independent party has also transcribed the audio file that is available and this transcript is attached. This provides details of each speaker and may help your listening of the file.

If you have any questions please contact me in the first instance.

Regards, Kristy

Attachments:
1. CNL20160801_1967_207_5.pdf
2. Transcript of Meeting 2016_08_01 np.pdf
3. Noble-Yaldhurst Village Update – 2016_08_01 final.pdf

—

GO TO NEW POST
27.9.16 Has DCC Delta stupidly bought into another Pegasus . . . . #notquite

Why has our Dunedin City Council decided to have anything to do with Infinity via council owned company Delta ? Which Infinity ? Infinity Investment Group Holdings Ltd ? Infinity Yaldhurst Ltd ? And who is Infinity Finance and Mortgage Ltd, of a bedroom at 12A Fovant St, Russley ? Is ‘Infinity’ a front for Gordon Stewart’s Noble Investments Ltd ? We delve…. Meanwhile, here’s Infinity’s slow-troubled-road Pegasus. Cont/

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *infinity*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #13 : Councillors! How low can you Zhao ?

Updated, this post was originally published on 29 Aug 2016.

Received from Christchurch Driver [CD]
Thu, 15 September 2016 at 6:53 p.m.

Readers

Recently some diligent whatiffers (thank-you Mick, Calvin), have provided some very pertinent information that puts your intemperate correspondent well ahead of the chasing pack that is national media.

Delta’s financial “breakthrough” at the Noble Subdivision got an airing on National Radio “news” late last month. Strangely, there was no mention of the buyers’ troubled history that checkmated $101M into the big depository in the sky. Fortunately, online media Stuff (26.8.16) has better quality reporting than our erstwhile public servants (well chaps, it was the weekend after all) and had this epic fail firmly in their sights. Vaughan Elder at the ODT (27.8.16) also stepped up to the plate, hammering home the $101M Infinity fail. “Efforts to contact Infinity Yaldhurst were unsuccessful,” said Vaughan [before ODT updated the article]. No prizes for why…..Go Vaughan you good thing !

Tonight, readers, over a cup of Bell or two (put that Twining’s rubbish away – we’re not in Fendalton now !)….. we shall look at a likely funder at Noble (at third mortgage level, no less), and in doing so we shall arrive at the quiet suburban destination of 12a Fovant St, Russley; the poor man’s Fendalton, if you will. Once again, truth trumps fiction, and from this secure and modest address it is quite probable the highly insecure and very immodestly sized Noble Subdivision will receive finance.

Firstly, readers, it is important to understand what your complete turnips of Councillors could not, and that is : it is the holder of the first mortgage that basically drives the train in any development. When things go bad – often – the developer gets told to go sit in the corner and play with some knives while the first mortgage owners decide what is best for them, and them alone, and the size of the haircut for everyone else. Delta have just found this out the expensive way to their approximate overall loss of $25M. Delta now wholeheartedly agree with this theory because they happily spent $3.39M of ratepayer funds to buy 67.5% of a $1.75M first mortgage, which was an illegal transaction at that. Mr Crombie and Mr Cameron say that interest doesn’t count ….Turnips that need to be culled, you say : I hear you!

But the problem with first mortgage holders is that they are very often banks that don’t have a large appetite for risk, and they hate “mezzanine financing” with all the conservative passion they can muster. Mezzanine funding is what they call funding projects during their construction. If things go wrong of course at the construction stage (consider Noble), there is only a half-finished at best project…. worth precisely nothing, which tends to play havoc with the banks’ precious LTV (loan-to-value) guidelines.

Readers will remember this was precisely the scenario at Noble where the mortgagee sale was marketed on the basis that it was bare land, ie the $11.5M of half-finished work by Delta was deemed to be worth nothing. So while Delta trumpet that there is a bank as a first mortgagee involved, your correspondent surmises that given the project’s radioactive history, it is a very small first mortgage, that is nowhere near big enough to finance the completion of even the first stage of the subdivision.

This leads us to some very interesting territory. How to fund the construction ? A smallish bank first mortgage, Delta as second mortgagee. Even Grady Cameron and possibly even Mr McLauchlan comprehend that they would be sacked if they advanced more public funds to Noble on a second mortgage basis. Could the purchaser, Infinity Yaldhurst Ltd fund it ? We do not know this, because of the commercial stupidity of most of your Councillors : we understand it was explained to them in words of almost one syllable at the Council meeting on 1 August that it was a VERY BAD THING to lend $13M-odd as a second mortgage, NOT KNOWING THE SPECIFICS OF THE OVERALL PROJECT FUNDING or the details of the “purchaser”, the shell company Infinity Yaldhurst, set up specifically for one project that has no assets and NO BACKING OR GUARANTEE from any other Infinity Group Company that managing director Paul Croft is involved in.

(Perhaps our walking photo opportunity that is the Mayor could advise us what sort of COLLATERAL SECURITY has been offered by Infinity Yaldhurst).

What is an impecunious property developer to do ? Readers, allow me to introduce to you…. Infinity Finance and Mortgage Ltd. This interestingly named company was incorporated on 17 March 2016. Your correspondent thinks that it provides a clue as to how the Noble Subdivision may be financed. Its sole director and shareholder is a fellow named Xiangqing ZHAO aka Xiang Qing ZHAO. The registered office of this apparent titan of finance is at 12a Fovant St, Russley, Christchurch. This is just a little more than a stone’s throw from the Noble Subdivision.

[click to enlarge]

A quick peep at Google Street View shows that Fovant St is a street of well tended and modest homes. There is not a single commercial premises evident. Now 12a (with a little pool in the backyard) is not actually visible from the street, being blocked by a quite nicely proportioned brick and tile bungalow from early 1970s, approximate value $590,000.

12a Fovant Street, Russley [Google Earth]

Mr Zhao’s previous commercial activities are also, ahem, somewhat idiosyncratic. Mr Zhao’s visible means of support includes his being the Shareholder of a pizza company, “X Pizza Ltd” and a company called “A-Team Company”.

So there is a suspicion that Dunedin City Councillors voted, at their meeting on 1 August, to lend $13M to a shell company, Infinity Yaldhurst, that may be receiving some form of finance from a company effectively controlled by an Asian, with a predilection for pizza, operating property investment companies and a finance company out of his bedroom – safely out of sight, down a driveway on a back section in Russley. It would be impossible to make this up. Gold Band at least had premises and statutory reporting requirements that it fulfilled. With Mr Zhao there is the very strong suspicion there will be a wall of opacity when things turn bad, and 12a will be sublet to Irish construction workers who have never heard of Mr Zhao and don’t know who receives their rent.

It is very significant our mendacious minders at Delta did not make any reference to precisely how the project would be funded on their breathless press release (26.8.16). Readers and ratepayers should be prepared for the fantastic fact that the Noble Subdivision is so troubled and radioactive it requires a THIRD mortgage (ie after the Bank, and after Delta) from an Asian “bedroom funder” several steps below a Microfinance company. Good grief, what next – crowd funding ?

One cannot escape the thought that perhaps the money that may be advanced does not belong to Mr Zhao, but he has some access to funds from Asia. We do know that a tsunami of cash from China in the last 12-18 months has washed through Australia, in particular the Gold Coast, and that cash has purchased an amazing amount of property there. It would be entirely unsurprising if Asian interests looked at this as a no-lose situation to park some funds. Plan A : Lend money to Infinity Yaldhurst at 25% plus (remember Delta were or are getting 22.5%). Plan B : If the project tips up yet again, buy out the first and second mortgage holders for about $16-20M, and create Christchurch’s first gated community dedicated to Asian peoples. Many of the sections are only 125 sq m, which would suit Asian immigrants, more than local residents.

The question readers, is how low – how low can our turnip Councillors Zhao ?

[ends]

● INFINITY YALDHURST LIMITED (5886102)
Incorporation Date: 09 Feb 2016
Address for service:
Jackson Valentine Limited, Level 3, 258 Stuart Street, Dunedin 9016
http://www.companies.govt.nz/co/5886102

● INFINITY INVESTMENT GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED (1004601)
Incorporation Date: 06 Dec 1999
Address for service:
Jackson Valentine Limited, Level 3, 258 Stuart Street, Dunedin 9016
http://www.companies.govt.nz/co/1004601

● INFINITY FINANCE AND MORTGAGE LIMITED (5920307)
Incorporation Date: 17 Mar 2016
Address for service:
Infinity Finance and Mortgage Limited, 12a Fovant Street, Russley, Christchurch 8042
http://www.companies.govt.nz/co/5920307

—

Related Posts and Comments:
26.8.16 Delta #EpicFail —EpicFraud #12 : The Buyer Confirmed
24.8.16 Delta peripheral #EpicFail : Stonewood Homes —Boult under investigation
8.8.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #11 : The Buyer
1.8.16 Delta #EpicFail —The End Game according to CD
31.7.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #10 : The Beginning of the End : Grady Cameron and his Steam Shovel

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered ion the public interest.

*Images: 123rf.com – Fatty Cull using Hula Hoop, tweaked by whatifdunedin | Noble Subdivision close proximity to 12a Fovant St [Mick Field overlay]

Delta #EpicFail —EpicFraud #12 : The Buyer Confirmed

Received from Christchurch Driver [CD]
Fri, 26 Aug 2016 at 9:47 p.m.

Readers, you must allow your correspondent some iced cupcakes with his Choysa tonight, go on then, the ones with the cherry on top….your correspondent, with a modicum of luck was in fact 100% successful in the dire prediction that Infinity, of Wanaka, are indeed the purchasers of the Noble Subdivision. Our friends at Delta have issued a breathless press release explaining they are or have received $0.9m – yes $0.9M, from their friends at Infinity. The sky is blue, houses will be built, Delta’s financial fruit will follow. Fancy that !! Let us allow reality to intrude : This is the first, and only guaranteed payment that Delta will receive for the outstanding $25M+ debt they have incurred there. That’s not low hanging fruit, it’s been trampled underfoot and is not even worth stewing (over). Trampled underfoot also is the small matter of the outstanding interest. Would it be churlish to remind readers that Delta, of course, has written off about $12M in interest because it wanted to protect certain reputations more than it wanted to protect ratepayers ? Would it spoil Delta’s collective fist pump to remind them that $0.9M is no more than (and likely less than) 4% of the outstanding debt ? Yes I thought so. Delta as debt collectors ? = EpicFail.

Missing in Delta’s gushing remarks from Grady Cameron was any mention of the Constructive Fraud action. It seems that the hapless Mr Smillie has taken Delta down a dark cul-de-sac yet again this week. Mr Smillie has opposed Delta being joined to the constructive fraud action, with a mistaken understanding of High Court rule 4.56. However, that rule is not relevant and it is trumped by High Court Rules 4.1 and 4.3 which allow parties to be joined. Basically, the rules allow that a plaintiff can joinder anyone at any time, and the plaintiff caveator in this action is 100% unlikely to allow the central party to the constructive fraud action (yes, that is you Grady as CEO of Delta) to smile bashfully and say “can I go now?” after having undermined the interests of the neighbours on occasions too numerous to count at this point. Oh well Mr Smillie, another unpaid legal bill….

This is an important point because our Delta friends seem oblivious to the impending legal actions they are facing. Delta think that because the caveats were lifted, all is well, but that is still subject to a court of appeal hearing, and the way is open now for Delta to have another action brought against them by the neighbours. Delta and the DCC’s pockets are deeper than Gold Band’s, and they can’t go broke, so from the neighbours’ view, what’s not to like ?

Delta’s utter stupidity is revealed when the press release acknowledges that they have allowed a bank lender to take the first mortgage over the property, and have put themselves, yet again in the same weak position. As noted in the Delta —EpicFraud #10 post, Dunedin City Council just needed to show a scrap of acumen and take control of the subdivision. Now their fortunes are tied to an even weaker developer than Noble (how is that possible ?), who has managed to lose, much, much more money than Noble (truth stranger than fiction), and to cap it off, are in the same second mortgage position. This is not logical. But it is a windfall – for Infinity. Could there be a quid pro quo somewhere ?

Turnips all round. Readers, consider when voting, that Cr Lee Vandervis is the only surviving councillor (there were only ever two, Hilary RIP from Council) who grasps this major issue and has fought for the ratepayers. Cr Vandervis has never been one to accept Mr Crombie’s vague platitudes and was always wary of Mr McKenzie. Vandervis for Mayor.

[ends]

—

From: Gary Johnson [Gary.Johnson @thinkdelta.co.nz]
Sent: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 at 4:21 p.m.

Message: Please find media release attached regarding a breakthrough on recovery of outstanding debt owed to Delta in relation to the Yaldhurst Village subdivision.

█ 160826 Media Statement_Breakthrough on Yaldhurst subdivision debt recovery

—

“With a new developer, new financing and removal of the caveats, the way is now clear for the Yaldhurst Village subdivision to restart….” Mr Grady (sic) said. –emphasis by whatifdunedin

### ODT Online Fri, 26 Aug 2016
Delta sells Christchurch subdivision
By Vaughan Elder
Delta has hailed the sale of a controversial Christchurch subdivision as a breakthrough in its efforts to recover $13.4 million in bad debt. The Dunedin City Council owned infrastructure company yesterday announced Wanaka-based developers Infinity Group purchased the Yaldhurst Village subdivision. […] The purchase means Delta has entered a new loan agreement with Infinity Yaldhurst Limited, to replace the existing $13.4 million debt owed to Delta by the original developer.
Read more [See tomorrow’s ODT]

—

● INFINITY YALDHURST LIMITED (5886102)
Incorporation Date: 09 Feb 2016
Address for service:
Jackson Valentine Limited, Level 3, 258 Stuart Street, Dunedin 9016
http://www.companies.govt.nz/co/5886102

Ultimate holding company :
● INFINITY INVESTMENT GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED (1004601)
Incorporation Date: 06 Dec 1999
Address for service:
Jackson Valentine Limited, Level 3, 258 Stuart Street, Dunedin 9016
http://www.companies.govt.nz/co/1004601

—

Related Posts and Comments:
8.8.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #11 : The Buyer
1.8.16 Delta #EpicFail —The End Game according to CD
31.7.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #10 : The Beginning of the End : Grady Cameron and his Steam Shovel

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Delta peripheral #EpicFail : Stonewood Homes —Boult under investigation

Stonewood Homes New Zealand Ltd was placed in receivership on February 22, 2016, owing unsecured creditors $15M.

### ODT Online Tue, 23 Aug 2016
Investigation of mayoral candidate
By Mark Price
Queenstown mayoral candidate Jim Boult is to be investigated in relation to the collapse of Stonewood Homes New Zealand Ltd, something Mr Boult says he welcomes. Ernst and Young liquidator Rhys Cain said yesterday an investigation into the failed company would begin “in the next few days”. It would examine the workings of the company during the two years before its collapse, with a “specific focus” on its final six months. […] Mr Boult was a member of the board of the Christchurch building company for about a year and acted as executive chairman for a period. He stood down from the board on February 1, 2016, telling Mountain Scene later he had done so because he had been part of an attempt to buy Stonewood before receivers were called in and he considered he had a conflict of interest. […] Asked if he could rule out action against Mr Boult, Mr Cain said: “No”.
Read more

—

Related Post and Comments:
11.3.16 Delta peripheral #EpicFail : Stonewood Homes and ancient Delta history

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: stuff.co.nz – Jim Boult by Stacy Squires

Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #11 : The Buyer

Received from Christchurch Driver [CD]
Sun, 7 Aug 2016 at 11:08 p.m.

Your correspondent was heartened to read Saturday’s ODT editorial. It was mostly on the money, apart from the fabrication that Delta pays a dividend most years, when it is well known that for many years it borrowed to provide dividends, and it will not pay a dividend for the next three years.

[screenshot]

In its diplomatic way, the editorial conveyed the (accurate) impression that

A)
Mayor Cull is a either a devious and unfaithful turnip or he is a blundering nincompoop. Given his disgusting complicity with DCHL Chair Crombie, last week, making simply absurd and risible statements as to why Delta CEO Cameron did not need to appear at the Council meeting and explain to Council how Delta, for the third time, had created a stinking financial mess, and done so under his approval to proceed at Noble in 2009, to build an illegal and unconsented subdivision. All Mayor Cull had to do to show some integrity and leadership was to insist to Delta and DCHL that Mr Cameron appear as per Councillors Vandervis and Calvert’s request. Ratepayers now know that he is unfit to be Mayor and has not a shred of any concern for the interests of Ratepayers but is simply part of the Dunedin establishment who protect each other. It is clear a great many Ratepayers have already come to this conclusion : As part of his mayoral campaign, Mayor Cull’s Facebook page invited feedback in recent weeks and it was so overwhelmed by negative and derisive comments – that he could not refute – that he simply stopped attempting to respond after two attempts. Readers should find the site – it may well have been taken down after the avalanche of negative feedback – and make THEIR views of Mr Cull known.

B)
Named and shamed the four Delta Directors, Frow, McLauchlan, Kempton and Parton, and that they contributed to the history of “secrecy and limited transparency” of Delta, a culture that “continues to envelope a company which is effectively owned by ratepayers”. ODT readers did not have to join too many dots to see that the ODT is saying that these directors are not fit to be directors of a Ratepayer owned company and need to be sacked. This is very strong (and welcomed) from the ODT.
We should consider the curious case of Mr McLauchlan, who has had his nose in the Delta trough since 2007 : It was around that time that Mr McLauchlan gave accounting evidence to the High Court for Scenic Circle in a dispute, reported in the ODT, with the co-owner over the then –new Scenic Circle Dunedin City Hotel. Mr McLauchlan, as seems to be the pattern with Delta, tried to tell the Court that black was white, that effectively, debits were credits and vice versa. Unfortunately for Mr McLauchlan, the opposing side had a much more credible accounting witness, whose evidence was the complete opposite of Mr McLauchlan’s. Needless to say the Court much preferred the evidence of the opposing side, so it is a statement of fact that the Courts have found Mr McLauchlan to be an unreliable witness. One wonders if Delta knew this when they appointed him, or if it was part of the job description….

And then there was the other curious case of Mr McLauchlan’s short tenure as the “Crown Monitor” for the SDHB, where an outgoing board member publicly questioned if he had any utility at all, and what did he actually do for the approximate $30,000 a year he received for acting as the Crown Monitor. Mr McLauchlan then confirmed to the ODT he hadn’t actually done anything as Crown Monitor except attend the board meetings and make some phone calls to Wellington. He had not written any reports – at all.

C)
The ODT did not dwell on CEO Grady Cameron. Your correspondent was wrong in his last post – Mr Cameron was not left to sweat it out in front of Council, but probably had so much dirt on the Directors and DCHL that they could not risk him appearing, and they conspired to put Mr Crombie in front of Council.

However, the true dirt tonight is the identity of ‘The Buyer'(?) of the Noble Subdivision : (ODT – feel free to pick this up and make any inquiry you want). It is of course truly unbelievable that Council would approve a loan of $13.4M to a buyer that they do not know, which shows that a wholesale cleanout of Councillors is necessary. More on that later. However, Councillors are not going to want to know the identity of the Buyer because they make the dismal NIL (Noble Investments Ltd), Tom Kain, Gordon Stewart, et al look like paragons of commercial acumen.

Your correspondent’s information is that the Buyer may be or very well includes Infinity (of Wanaka). A caveat, readers : We seek through the glass, darkly, and are not privy to the full machinations of Mr Crombie and his cronies. It will not be certain until this is confirmed publicly, but we do know that Delta, via Mr Murray Frost, have been working on this “arrangement” for months. Perhaps the ODT might like to make inquiries of Mr Paul Croft, General Manager and CFO of Infinity Investment Group Holdings….
Now at one level Infinity and Delta are birds of a very, very similar feather, and it is clear why they would seek to stick together : Like Delta, this will be Infinity’s third attempt at a Canterbury subdivision. Like Delta, the other two have been failures. Readers, hold those cups of Tiger Tea tight…. Infinity’s abysmal financial performance on those projects makes Delta look like seasoned and competent professionals !!!

The amazing truth that is stranger than fiction : Infinity have lost MUCH MUCH MORE than Delta on their two failed Canterbury projects…… IN EXCESS OF $100M. I can hear the teacups rattling now, readers, “Prove it CD, prove it !!” Elementary, my dear readers : Here is the link to the Stuff.co.nz story that appeared last year. It takes a special effort to lose $100M on one deal, but Infinity pulled it off. Perhaps Delta’s Mr Cameron and CFO Dixon, having had their subdivision trainer wheels on since 2009, are ready to move up to the big leagues at Infinity and lose serious amounts of someone else’s money.

It beggars belief that Mr Frost, who has been acting for Delta (but mostly Noble, it appears), would actively court Infinity as the Buyer, and place at risk $13.4M of Dunedin Ratepayers’ money with a company with this recent history; when there was a far safer option of Dunedin City Council taking control of the project, perhaps in concert with a developer that HAD NOT lost $100M on the same sort of project. Let us not forget either, the other $12M that Mr Crombie has “given up on” reported by the ODT last week, as though it were a trifle as light as air. If it were your money, Mr Crombie, I don’t think you would be quite so cavalier.
Readers should remember that essentially the deal is that the Buyer (Infinity ?) will pay around $2.7M to Gold Band Finance, and $1M to Delta (probably for consultant and court costs !) and NO OTHER MONEY CHANGES HANDS. If that is the best that Delta / Gold Band could do I will eat my tea cosy.
Bottom line : This deal smacks of cronyism.

And here is the interesting part : Murray Frost, Graham Crombie and Stuart McLauchlan are all well known to each other. We hope that there will be assurances that there will be NO INVOLVEMENT or REMUNERATION either directly or indirectly to these three, or any other Delta or DCHL personnel, on the Noble Subdivision.

Mr Crombie – as someone allegedly with an IQ greater than room temperature – how could you think this deal passes the smell test for a Ratepayer owned company ? What if? understands you conspired to conceal key information about this deal from Councillors. As the ODT infers, you are a pathetic guardian for the Ratepayers’ interests and you need to conduct that cost/benefit analysis we advised you to do months ago, and prepare the resignation letter – before a new mayor orders a “review” of the DCHL structure, which as we all know is code for : “Get rid of those incompetents, ASAP”.

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: Screenshot of ODT Online (detail) tweaked by whatifdunedin

LGOIMA requests to DCC from Colin Stokes #Delta #Noble #Yaldhurst

Received from Colin Stokes
Wed, 3 Aug 2016 at 12:30 p.m.

These emails are being circulated to national broadcast and print media today.

—

Colin Stokes, caveator and plaintiff, is one of the original landowners of the Noble Subdivision application (Yaldhurst, Christchurch).

In short, Delta, with its controlling interest at Noble, has joined with other parties, in the ongoing repeated attempt to defeat the known prior interests of Mr Stokes, Greg Smith, and others.

Those parties with Delta appear to have connived to form a new consortium to purchase and control the development, with ongoing cheap money from Dunedin Ratepayers to prop up their own private fortunes.

Life has never been so good for Mr Crombie, does he work for the likes of Justin Prain, Gordon Stewart, Murray Valentine, Murray Frost, Paul Croft
—Or us, poor little us who bleed.
Rhetorical.

Noble is like Sticky Pudding for fatsos.

Here are some straight shooting questions in public domain —for Transparency, that old so OLD concept not known to DCHL / Delta and the Noble / Gold Band bandits.

—

[Updated LGOIMA request]

From: Colin Stokes
Sent: Wednesday, 3 August 2016 12:27 p.m.
To: Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA: Noble Yaldhurst Subdivision Christchurch Delta DCC

Dear Dr Bidrose

Could I please amend my LGOIMA question number 4 below?

It was both Noble and Gold Band that enticed Delta to provide infrastructure and services at Delta’s cost on the promises of “agreements to have first-ranking first mortgages registered over the land.

Noble owned the land (it having been transferred to Noble by the neighbours for promises alone), and Gold Band held the thinly spread first mortgage over all 9 titles.
The enticement (recorded in their security sharing agreements):-
a. Noble agreed to give Delta “first-ranking first mortgages over the land” if Delta did the works at Dunedin ratepayers expense;
b. Gold Band agreed to swap priority of its first mortgage in favour of Delta over certain Lots if Delta did the works at Dunedin ratepayers expense;

c. Noble then reneged on providing the interests protected by the caveats that prevent Delta’s agreements to mortgage from being registered.
d. Gold Band (and Noble) (and with Deltas insistence apparently) then, under the guise of Gold Bands power of first mortgagee (despite its only 32.5% ownership of it), ran a mortgagee sale tender that lapsed Delta’s caveats protecting their agreements to mortgage used to entice the works.
✔ Subordinate caveats, behind Deltas caveats, that protect the interests of [parties] associated with Nobles did not lapse in the tender documents; such as Southpac which is controlled by Nobles sole director Gordon Ralph Stewart.

So question 4 should correctly read:-

4 updated.
the total sum of “agreements to mortgage” given by Noble Investments Ltd (NIL) and Gold Band Finance Ltd to Delta to entice Delta to do work for them at Dunedin ratepayers costs?

Thanks and regards
Colin

[original LGOIMA request]

From: Colin Stokes [mailto:stokesy@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 2 August 2016 11:07 p.m.
To: ‘Sue Bidrose’
Subject: LGOIMA: Noble Yaldhurst Subdivision Christchurch Delta DCC

Chief Executive Officer
Dr Sue Bidrose
Dunedin City Council (DCC)

LGOIMA: Noble Yaldhurst Subdivision Christchurch Delta DCC

I am one of dozens of resident owners in the above subdivision. We have prior interests from 2002 in the land that Delta has mortgages and shared mortgages and agreements to mortgages on.

I am also one of the residents that lodged caveats to protect these interests. I gave my caveators’ consent required of Delta to register its mortgage on the land. The consent was given on the clear condition and acceptance that the work Delta was securing with the mortgage included for the interests that the mortgagor/developer Noble owed us. Noble and Delta both agreed.

However we later discovered Noble and Delta had already designed a plan before they approached us whereby Delta was given the power (illegally under the Property Law Act) to instruct the first mortgagee Gold Band to do as Delta instructed in relation to defeating our caveats.

Noble and Delta then jointly constructed the works not including our provisions as agreed and making them impossible.

Delta later bought a 67.5% share of Gold Bands first mortgage (this too is illegal under the Property Law Act s84 – partial assignments are not permitted)

Delta then used Gold Band as planned to use their first mortgage position in Court to defeat our caveats to recover Delta’s subordinate debts.

We tried to redeem Gold Band and Delta’s shared first mortgage in 2014 but they refused us (we later found out that this was illegal under the Property Law Act as well – s102). We tried again recently but they illegally demanded double what it is worth and wouldn’t answer our request for information that we require to legitimately redeem it.

I understand they now propose to sell the land by way of mortgagee sale to defeat our caveat protection, despite that it’s illegal to do so given our prior interests and two refused requests to redeem the first mortgage.

I also understand from media statements and statements made in public Council meeting, that Delta are seeking to write off millions of dollars of debt in the subdivision ($25m debt due in Feb 2016) and are now only “chasing $13.3m”.

I have information that Noble gave Delta a mortgage (with our caveators’ consent), and agreements to mortgage subject only upon our caveats being defeated or removed, to a total of at least $22.7m. This seems peculiar that if Delta can have $22.7m in security that it would write off above $13.3m of what the law would require MUST go to ratepayers.

I am aware that DCC 100% own Dunedin City Holdings Ltd (DCHL) and that DCHL 100% own Delta Utility Services Ltd; so under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA), in relation to the Noble Yaldhurst Subdivision Christchurch, please provide:-

1. the valuation’s for the mortgaged property that DCC is relying on in its proposal that Delta must lose multiple millions of dollars in debt due to Dunedin ratepayers (despite having “securities in the land that covers the debt” according to Delta media releases)?

2. the total debt due to Delta from the subdivision (actual debt including what Delta consider to be doubtful it can recover)?

3. the total debt secured on the land in mortgage? a/ share of first mortgage? and b/ second mortgage amount including interest?

4. the total sum of “agreements to mortgage” given by Noble Investments Ltd (NIL) to Delta to entice Delta to do work for them?
{See email above for new wording to 4. -Eds}

5. the tender documents and agreements that are, or have been, before DCC for their consideration including how those amounts are proposed to be distributed?

6. DCC’s responses to the people with caveated prior interests in the land who have presented and sought to present and discuss alternative proposals with the Council, including that of redemption and transfer?

7. correspondence and/or actions taken to contact and liaise with existing resident stakeholders with known prior interests in the land and in the development?

Kind regards
Colin Stokes
021 2200622

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Lee Vandervis on Delta + DCHL media release

What if? Dunedin notes:
Dunedin City Councillors have now lost control of DCHL, Delta, and all the other subsidiary companies. Now, your Dunedin City Council is manipulated and run to ground by DCHL chairman Graham Crombie.

Cr Richard Thomson and DCHL’s Graham Crombie should Resign immediately.

Read on.

—

Received from Cr Lee Vandervis
Tue, 2 Aug 2016 at 6:48 p.m.

From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 18:01:53 +1200
To: Chris Morris [ODT]
Conversation: Yaldhurst
Subject: Re: Yaldhurst

The Mayor and DCHL have stood by and done nothing as DELTA did massive Noble subdivision work costing over $13 million through 2010 to 2013 without getting so much as a progress payment.
DELTA have already written off more than $11 million owed in interest payments and invested a further $3+ million in buying mortgage shares in the ill-fated subdivision in 2013, but this was disguised and Councillors [word deleted] by Chair Crombie and by Mayor Cull despite my specific questioning about the supposed ‘just a bad debt’.
The now $24+ million loss for which DELTA has only a 67% first mortgage as a lever, to get some millions owed paid, has resulted in a 6-years-too-late knee-jerk from DCHL and Mayor Cull to rid itself of the whole mess, the disgusting details of which I am not permitted to divulge because the deed was done in a public-excluded meeting, without being allowed to question the responsible DELTA CEO Cameron or to see the requested valuations and contracts.
Like the Jacks Point/Luggate DELTA subdivision $7-$9 million losses, the same DELTA, some of the same directors, same Project Management company and same DCHL ‘oversight’ have done over Dunedin ratepayers again, this time for even more millions than what resulted when they failed at Jacks Point/Luggate.

[ends]

****

[What if? Dunedin : We said DCC could make Real money – now What if? hears that Mr Crombie told reporter Chris Morris that ‘no money is changing hands’. Very few people including most Councillors have any idea of what is truly happening, except that three accountants are writing or was that ‘deciding'(?) the deal, and then this rubbish release from Mr Crombie. OMG]

—

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Update on Yaldhurst subdivision debt recovery

This item was published on 02 Aug 2016

Dunedin City Holdings Limited (DCHL) and its company Delta Utility Services Limited (Delta) can now start to make progress towards recovering money associated with a Canterbury development.

The Dunedin City Council yesterday supported a recommendation from DCHL relating to the Yaldhurst Village subdivision. Delta has an outstanding debt of more than $13 million for infrastructure work it carried out for the development over four years.

DCHL Chairman Graham Crombie says the decision means Delta is authorised to enter a new loan agreement with a potential purchaser of the Yaldhurst subdivision, to replace the existing $13.4 million debt owed to Delta by Noble Investments Limited. Mr Crombie says, “We can now start to make some progress towards recovering this outstanding debt.”

The decision authorises Delta to refinance its outstanding debt with the potential new purchaser, on settlement of the purchaser’s offer to Gold Band Finance Ltd, the first mortgagee.

Gold Band Finance put the Yaldhurst subdivision to tender late last year in a mortgagee sale process. The mortgagee sale is still subject to conditions. When the mortgagee sale process is concluded, Delta will provide a further update on the outcome.

During 2009-2013, Delta provided infrastructure services for the Yaldhurst subdivision through its now closed civil construction business in Christchurch. Delta’s role was as a contractor providing infrastructure services to the developer, Noble Investments Limited. Recovery of the outstanding debt has been held up by a longstanding dispute between the developer and neighbouring properties that has delayed titles being issued for the subdivision.

Mr Crombie says Delta remains fully focused on recovering the outstanding debt owed by the original developer and has mortgage securities in place for the amount owing.

Note: The Dunedin City Council owns Dunedin City Holdings Ltd, which in turn owns seven subsidiary companies being:
● Aurora Energy Ltd
● Delta Utility Services Ltd
● City Forests Ltd
● Dunedin City Treasury Ltd
● Taieri Gorge Railway Ltd
● Dunedin Venues Limited
● Dunedin Venues Management Limited

and a 50% share in Dunedin International Airport Ltd.

Contact Chairman , Dunedin City Holdings Ltd on 03 477 4000.

DCC Link

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Delta #EpicFail —The End Game according to CD

Updated post
Mon, 1 Aug 2016 at 9:54 a.m.

—

Received from Christchurch Driver [CD]
Sun, 31 Jul 2016 at 9:50 p.m.

Readers and Councillors, there is a way out of the Noble Quagmire— but first, not before there is a wholesale clean out of the Delta senior management and directors, or those that have either created this toxic mess or allowed it to continue, which is all of them.

As time is tight, we will not dwell yet again on this topic…. but we will return.

After spending many months considering this toxic mess and the abysmal management and governance that is evident, your Correspondent has come to a conclusion that shocks even him, but desperate times call for if not desperate, then extreme lateral thinking :

After a clean out at Delta, we must hold our collective noses and Council must do the unthinkable and spend MORE ratepayer funds and BUY OUT GOLDBAND’S 32.50% SHARE OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE and take control of the ENTIRE SUBDIVISION.

Council need only to buy the $2.7M Gold Band First Mortgage to have complete control of the project. There of course remains the issue of the Neighbours and the ongoing court actions, but the Neighbours are very willing to work with Council (not Delta) and they have estimated that a solution to provide for their interests could cost around $2M.

The Neighbours have offered to meet with Councillors immediately, at any time to discuss and resolve the issue. The alternative is ongoing legal action with the Council in a very weak positon. Certainly, Crs Calvert and Vandervis, and other Councillors also share this position.

█ Here is the Outline Plan

1. DCC – (Preferably NOT Delta or DCHL) spends $2.7M to buy the remaining first mortgage. To be free of the toxic taint of the DCHL, ideally a separate Council Owned Company may need to be created. Tax issues may mean it has to stay within Delta but every effort should be made to avoid this. Once the $2.7M mortgage is bought there are no external interest costs, just some rates and insurances, which are minimal in the overall scale of things. Council then has time to make informed decisions. THE IMPORTANT THING IS TO AGREE TO BUY THE MORTGAGE AND STOP THE CURRENT MORTGAGEE SALE (which is possible with the agreement of the Neighbours under s102 of the Property Law Act).

2. BEFORE the remaining mortgage is bought, do a deal with the Neighbours to satisfy their interests which will cost around $2M, plus some amount for Neighbours’ costs – this might be around $500-600,000. The legal costs might grate but that is the cost of acting like a corporate criminal. This step provides certainty to Council there will be no more legal delays that have added years to the project.

3. The DCC appoint a directly employed project manager that is answerable directly to the DCC CEO, and set in place very clear KPIs and make a very large proportion of his/her remuneration subject to those KPIs. NOT a “Consultant” and DEFINITELY NOT Mr Mike Coburn or any other person associated with past or present Directors.

4. That project manager will have full visibility of absolutely all costs relating to the subdivision past and present, and will present full and detailed monthly reporting to Councillors and DCC Management and appear at all Council meetings. The project manager will have complete control over the Delta CEO on this matter.

5. Resolve with Christchurch City Council and Yaldhurst Community what is required to make a workable and safe subdivision.

6. Complete the work required to sell the first stages of the residential subdivisions – there are around 80 sections ready to go and if a deal was offered to a housing company like Mike Greer Homes that had demonstrated expertise and capacity to build cost effective homes, the deal would be done in a week. The remaining work would NOT be done by Delta but by a small efficient company. Above all, it is important that the work awarded by the DCC project manager is an open and transparent process and there are no links to Delta or DCHL Directors, past or present.

7. Councillors must understand the land will never be worth less than it is now – they must avoid Denham Shale-like stupidity that occurred at Luggate where land was sold for a fraction of the cost, only for the sections to be marketed several years later at prices that would have yielded Delta all of its funds spent there, interest and a profit besides. Council must learn from the mistakes past, not repeat them, otherwise there will be more Auditor-general and Ombudsman reports, and it won’t be good for Council.

8. Councillors must resist temptation to bow to the Delta / DCHL Directors recommendations to sell now – the overriding concern of these incompetents is to sweep this toxic mess under the carpet and hope that Ratepayers will buy the TINA line – there is no alternative, we just had to move on with another $10-20M loss….

9. The directors will be pushing hard for a quick sale and say in effect : “If you don’t accept this mortgagee offer there won’t be another as good” which is utter rubbish. There were several mortgagee offers, despite the property being marketed over the holiday break and with a lot of complexity in the sale document that wrote off large chunks of value. But the essential point is that the first sections that are almost ready and all or part of the commercial land is sold off separately, then Delta plus get MORE than what is currently available :

10. What is the ultimate value of the land ? Very quickly, there is over 35,000 m2 of commercial land, for a major commercial centre including retail anchors and specialty shopping that is already master planned with the main entrance road virtually complete. This excludes the main entrance road and shared parking circulation roads. Even in a fire sale this land is worth around $90-100 /m2. This alone is a value of $31M minimum, Councillors. Admittedly it will take time to sell down, but the upside is huge again – even industrial land in Christchurch is $250-300 /m2, and commercial zoning is worth more again. Completed, in an orderly sell down over time, 35,000 m2 at $300 /m2 is …. too big to contemplate !! The 80 completed sections would be worth around $9M nett after selling costs, and then there are 190 consented but undeveloped sections that your Correspondent says are worth around $9M also. These end value figures are why Noble are fighting so hard to regain control of the asset. Yes, there is some re-work and further costs, but they are small in relation to the total asset. The key is not to pass that value to some bottom feeding vulture at mortgagee sale that is likely to be NIL in disguise. NOTE : Your Correspondent has not calculated in detail the area of the commercial land.

11. The Delta Directors and Mr Crombie, Mr Dixon and Mr Cameron cannot be trusted. They have not ever given Councillors the full facts about a range of matters, have at best misled Mr McKenzie. Their willingness to simply close the door and accept a huge loss on this deal is plainly evident by the fact they wrote off in excess of $10M in their 2015 accounts. They just want to forget this mess ever existed, because it is Other People’s Money.

12. Councillors should consider 2 final facts : The only way that the $24M investment that ratepayers have made in this project to be protected and repaid is if Council finishes the project, even if just in part. With what has gone on, there must be full accountability and transparency which can only be achieved by full Council control. The other thing to remember is that Council has already set a precedent to bail out loss making Council enterprises : It’s called the stadium. Council agreed to reduce the rent by $1.85M per year. If Council takes an amount equal to around 18 months of Stadium rent subsidy to DVML, it can have control over the subdivision and very likely make back at least the $10-15M in interest costs that would pay for the Luggate and Jacks Point debacles !! Result !!

Go on Councillors, make a sensible and decision tomorrow and make us proud.

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #10 : The Beginning of the End : Grady Cameron and his Steam Shovel

Received from Christchurch Driver [CD]
Sun, 31 Jul 2016 at 1:18 a.m.

Dear Readers

We must give plaudits to Vaughan Elder of the ODT for Saturday’s front page article on Delta’s court action over the Noble Subdivision. Readers should remember that the new CEO of the ODT Grant McKenzie, Mr Elder’s employer, stated in a Council Meeting in February that there was “no relationship” between Gold Band Finance and Delta, and continued to perpetrate that myth in Saturday’s newspaper : Mr McKenzie “stood by comments he made at the council meeting at February”. That is a classic piece of misdirection, in that most people will read it and construe that Mr McKenzie is saying his comments in February were true and accurate, but of course it does not say that —Mr McKenzie has thrown a lifeline to himself so that when the good ship Delta sinks, he can say that he “stood by” his comments in so far as what he knew or had been definitively confirmed to him at the time —or some other carefully concocted excuse that may or may not be true.

But readers, tonight we are not concerned with Mr McKenzie (you can go now Mr McKenzie, we know you read this site….), but the dismal and desperate Mr Grady Cameron. Saturday’s article was very telling in many respects :

Firstly, when Delta thought it had a chance of controlling the issue back in February, it issued a general press release via Gary Dixon and made contact with What if? to deal with alleged “misinformation” that was being perpetrated (mostly by your correspondent). Back then, Mr Graham Crombie, the DCHL chair, was also wheeled out to add gravitas and to try to stabilise the situation, which failed miserably, as your correspondent was happy to predict. See the earlier post Tea & Taxing Questions (6 Mar 2016). It was suggested in that post that Mr Crombie conduct a personal risk register cost/benefit analysis, for any Noble involvement. Mr Crombie has read the tea leaves, and neither him nor any other director are anywhere to be seen. Mr Cameron (Grady) is all on his own.

Let us examine the hole that Grady has dug for himself. Grady is quite clearly not really an earthmoving guy, and has obviously never read the early childhood earthmover’s bible written in 1939 by Virginia Lee Burton, Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel : Four corners…neat and square…four walls straight down…We’ve dug so fast and we’ve dug so well that we’ve quite forgotten to leave a way out! —Yes readers, there is no way out, for Grady.

Over a Choysa (No sugar please, it’s late), let us examine some of his statements in Saturday’s ODT.

In a response emailed to the ODT, Mr Cameron disagreed

Well Grady, how about sending out a general press release or an email, as you did in February so that others like What if? who have been on your trail for months, can verify what you are saying is factual, and you are not merely trying to sidestep Mr Elder who is new to the issue.

“We remain fully focused on recovering the outstanding debt owed to Delta from the developer and have securities in place for the amount owing.”

That is a disgraceful misrepresentation of the truth, Grady Cameron, and you know it is. Your DCHL chair Mr Crombie confirmed that the amount owed in March including interest, was over $24M, and you have security for $13.3M. This is beyond doubt because the recent court documents show you were willing to allow Gold Band to sell the mortgage for $16M, which included your second mortgage interest of $5M. This meant after Gold Band was paid its –current– share of the 32.5% of the First Mortgage, Delta would receive $13M. Mr Crombie also confirms you are not telling the truth because he said in the ODT (23 Feb 2016) that Delta would have to write off millions, but not to worry, it was only interest and it was “horrendous”.

The mortgagee sale was being conducted by Gold Band Finance, not Delta, he said.

Grady, with this statement you are not fit to remain as CEO any longer. Your disdain for the collective intelligence of Ratepayers is clearly in the gutter. You –Delta!, dictate what Gold Band can and cannot do. See the earlier post #EpicFail —Noble Subdivision: Cameron, Crombie and McKenzie (24 Feb 2016). Grady, you spent $3.39M on a very likely illegal 67.50% share of the Gold Band first mortgage so you could dictate to Gold Band what they can and can’t do, and you have promised to pay all their costs, “legal or otherwise”. You have already dictated to Gold Band that they cannot sell the first mortgage to the other landowners, who offered to buy it. This is confirmed in Gold Band emails in court documents.

How about answering these questions Grady :

When purchasing the partial first mortgage amounts, what interest rate did Delta have to pay for the first mortgage amounts ?

Was it 22.50% compounding, or a figure close to that? If Delta has to pay 22.50% interest, why do you think it is appropriate for Ratepayers to receive no interest on the $13M approx. of core debt that has been outstanding for six years ?

It (Delta) had not been involved in any unethical behaviour

We could have hours of entertainment with this one, but gravitas and the impending council meeting this Monday mean we must play it straight.

Grady, that is another disgusting fabrication.

Did you allow the ENTIRE SUBDIVISION WORK COMPLETED BY DELTA AT THE NOBLE SUBDIVISION to be completed NOT to the CCC CONSENT DRAWINGS AND SPECS, but to radically different specifications, with roadways that were 8 METRES NARROWER than the CCC Consent Requirements ?

Did this continue for AT LEAST 18 MONTHS from late 2009 to mid 2011 ?

Is it normal for Delta to ignore the local authority consent conditions for projects and simply suit themselves and their clients ?

If not, how on earth could you consider it “ethical” on this project ?

Did Delta install stormwater systems at the subdivision that were undersized to cater for the neighbours’ land, but continue to assure them that their interests were being catered for ?

Do you consider that actively trying to defeat “known prior interests in the land”, that were specified very clearly in the sale and purchase agreements for the land that the subdivision was being built upon, ethical behaviour ?

Do you think that attempting to have your $5M second mortgage, that was registered after various caveats were registered, paid ahead of the caveated interests is ethical ?

Do you say the following -extracted from the post Epic Fraud #5 – Delta and the ghostly hand of Tom Kain (12 Jul 2016)- shows ethical behaviour ?

Mr Smillie (Delta’s lawyer) in an email of 11 February 2011 sets out step by step how the deception will work :

1. NIL granting a registered mortgage to Delta.
2. Philpott etc consenting to registration of the mortgage but the caveat remains in place ahead of Delta’s mortgage.
3. Gold Band agrees to Delta having 1st priority
4. Gold Band agrees to hold its 1st registered mortgage on lot 19 on trust for Delta (To allow sale / enforcement by Delta if necessary so as to avoid caveat issues

Mr Smillie concludes by stating “while not ideal that seems to be as close as we can get to a 1st registered mortgage position for Delta given the caveat issue”.

If you consider it ethical, what would it take for you to find there was unethical behaviour —murder ?

Are you willing to state categorically that you will resign if any of these allegations are true ?

tried several times to find a solution […] on the neighbouring land.

Grady, did any of these solutions involve actually working with the neighbours, or merely trying to deceive and cheat them of their prior known interests.

Provide email evidence of any assertion that you sought to satisfy their interests.

If you allegedly ‘tried to find a solution’ why was it necessary to go about a constructive fraud, designed by Mr Smillie, as noted above to defeat their caveats.

He denied Delta’s actions over Yaldhurst had been reckless.

Grady, if Delta has not been “reckless” then by your lights, Delta has acted with some degree of prudence.
Let us back the truck up here.
You, personally, approved Delta’s involvement in this subdivision, in 2009, with full knowledge of the following :

a) The land was in fact not even owned by the Developer NIL, but in a complicated buy-back scenario with a lot of obligations to the landowners.
b) Has a third (or fourth) tier finance company, Gold Band Finance, as first mortgagee (because the banks would not lend on it).
c) The first mortgage loan amount was only $1.75M, it was fully drawn down, and the finance company Gold Band had NO ABILITY to advance any further funds to pay for Delta’s work.
d) No other second mortgage funding was in place to allow Delta to be paid.
e) The Developer NIL had no capacity at all to make payments to Delta from its own resources.
f) The Developer and Owners, Apple Fields and NIL, were well known commercial hazards and aggressive litigants.
g) The subdivision has 33KV overhead powerlines running through it, and has limited market appeal.
h) Delta would not be paid until the most or all of the sections were sold and paid for, and the industry at the time would have forecast around a two-year sell down period.

In other words, you approved $11M of work, in a dodgy subdivision project, that had no chance of ANY meaningful repayment, for at least three to four years, on the absolute best case scenario, until the sections were sold.

Grady, if you consider this NOT to be reckless commercial behaviour for a Ratepayer owned company, you need to be sacked, now.

Readers, in conclusion, even in our children’s story, ‘Mike Mulligan’, there were consequences for non–performance. Grady, it looks as if the Delta Directors and DCHL have left you, and you are, indeed…. the weakest link, and expendable. Just like Mary-Anne, the steam shovel, along will come new management, just like the new diesel shovels, and electric shovels that made Mary-Anne redundant. There will be NO MORE WORK for you, and just like Mary-Anne, you will be GONE. “They left the canals, and the railroads, and the highways, and the airports, and the big cities, where no one wanted them any more….. and went away.”

Readers, if you have the patience, the best primer for the sorry saga is found in the first post Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud (5 Mar 2016).

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Images: [lessons in creative destruction, a shocked Mary-Anne] Illustrations from Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel (1939), a book by Virginia Lee Burton – blog.acton.org | childrensbooksguide.com | blog.acton.org

Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #9 : The Long & Winding Road…. Leads Back to Delta’s Door

Updated post – emails added below
Fri, 29 Jul 2016 at 2:20 p.m.

—

Received from Christchurch Driver [CD]
Fri, 29 Jul 2016 at 2:01 a.m.

Dear Readers

It has been a week of action around the ill-fated Noble Subdivision. Fill the teapot and hang on to your hat…er, tea cosy.

The week started with what appeared to be a lucky break for Delta. Judge Osborne, inexplicably, and against the predictions of your correspondent, found in favour of Delta. (Actually Gold Band, but we all now know of course that Delta have a very special relationship with Gold Band that involves whips and chains of a sort, and even legal blindfolds —Delta most definitely wear the security sharing trousers). Judge Osborne will not allow a stay on the mortgagee sale, which allows the property to be sold ahead of the Court of Appeal case where the landowners will set out their case that Delta have engaged in constructive fraud.

Your correspondent will return to the many, many puzzling aspects of the decision in a future post, but first the breaking news :

Any comfort Mr Smillie, Mr Cameron, and the assorted Delta hangers on directors and executives may have felt will be very short lived as it turns out that this defeat is actually a Good Thing as far as the plaintiffs are concerned. It means that instead of pursuing a small finance company (with its strings being pulled by Delta), Delta and the DCC are now the primary target. Further, now that the losses to the landowners are crystallised if the sale proceeds, which is the avowed intention of Gold Band, the claims may well be much bigger.

The “legal” explanation is as follows…. It’s musical chairs – the last man/entity standing at the end of the day cops the lot.

A similar example that has cost councils large sums, including our DCC, are claims for leaky buildings : The vast majority of claims are against the local authorities who merely inspected the work, they did not build it or design it – but when the developer doesn’t exist, the architect and builders have “re-structured” to prevent claims, and the painter, plasterer and roofer have no money, then councils get landed with the claims. The QLDC have a never ending series of these sorts of claims and they mostly involve millions. (They have at least two on at present).

Tonight, all DCC Councillors received an email from the landowners explaining that yes, the DCC and Delta are going to be taken to Court for the constructive fraud, and giving several examples of the constructive fraud. They then set out the small matter of the approximate $14-17million loss that Delta have already advised the Council they expect to lose – and why this doesn’t have to be the case. There is pain from both sides of this financial double-edged sword – the expected loss, and the court action. However, far from being Noble-like aggressive litigants, the landowners have proposed that the DCC works with them to maximise their return.

The email is reproduced below.

The logic appears compelling – but what Councillors, other than Vandervis and Calvert, have the character and integrity to get to the bottom of the matter, and acknowledge that there have been some illegal acts committed at Noble by Delta and its agents. Perhaps Cr Peat could do something useful or even visible as his parting gift to the city, because his self-serving valedictory address in the ODT recently was the first time Dunedin Ratepayers had actually heard of him.

What Councillors have the intestinal fortitude to look the sorry band of Delta and DCHL Directors in the eye and say to them— “If any of the allegations in this email are true then you have no business or future with ANY DCC or associated entity and we expect your resignation in the morning ?”  

If your correspondent sounds disgruntled, he is : It is election season, and there are no votes to be had in this matter. Vague platitudes (the preferred modus operandi of many Councillors) are also of no help. Are our Councillors going to shrug off an attack of the turnips and do something ?

What price and what probability, is there for integrity here, readers ?

—

[click to enlarge]

Attachment: 2016 07 28 s102 Stokes Smith Gold Band_Delta_DCC

****

Additional emails received today:

Attachment: Fourth amended statement of claim joining GB and Delta

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Delta EpicFail #8 : Cr Calvert goes AWOL, 23 Questions for Mr McKenzie —Saddlebags !!

Received from Christchurch Driver [CD]
Thu, 21 Jul 2016 at 1:11 a.m.

Readers, we must observe a minute’s silence for Councillor Calvert, who will be greatly missed. Councillor Calvert was one of few – very few – willing to shake off the soporific torpor afflicting so many of the elected representatives, ask penetrating questions, and not follow the herd. Some other Councillors think that simpering naivety is a fetching and winning look (and not just limited to one particular female councillor), but on the very few times your correspondent has been able to withstand viewing parts of a council meeting, he had a heaving feeling and it wasn’t stale milk in the Choysa.

Ms Calvert did make some missteps in her term, and the Court of Appeal judgement in relation to the James Queenstown Development undoubtedly might have affected her confidence to run, but this correspondent says, all is forgiven Hilary, the city needs you. A suggestion : Why not just go all out and stand for Mayor on the premise that you have done your time as Councillor and got treated like a mushroom by Mayor Cull et al, so you now know that to achieve reform in the city of Dunedin, you need to be at the top, and nothing else will do. That would be a powerful message and it would resonate with many. Please consider it. Readers, please post your support to show Cr Calvert there is a mayoral Calvert constituency – offers of assistance also appreciated !!

So the DCC has refused to answer Cr Calvert’s questions in relation to Delta. Instead, Mr McKenzie, “has been asked to contact” Cr Calvert. It is not recorded by the DCC if Mr McKenzie agreed to do this, or alternately, had been instructed to, ie couldn’t refuse to. Bureaucrats !!

But Mr McKenzie wants to hold a “workshop” with councillors on this issue. We can be so very very sure that without the efforts of What if? this workshop would never have seen the light of day. Your correspondent says this workshop is the first of the plaintive cries of ignorance and fast & furious duckshoving predicted in the EpicFail #6 post. What is not needed is some vague platitudes from the departing Mr McKenzie, who now has no stake or future in the DCC, but some evidence and history of the issue in writing, that can be considered by the people footing the bill, ie us. And there had better be something comprehensive and truthful – in writing, or the Ombudsman (who is already watching the DCC for its appalling LGOIMA performance on other matters) will be involved.

To this end, your ever helpful correspondent has prepared some additional questions for Mr McKenzie’s workshop in addition to Cr Calvert’s questions, that all ratepayers will be VERY interested to know the responses to. Councillors, feel free to pick and run with as many as you like. Goodness knows, even Mr Vaughan Elder of the ODT may want to pursue some : Breaking news is that the ODT is sick of being pummelled by What if? on this issue (and others) and has assigned Mr Elder to pursue the Delta / Noble story. Welcome to the party Mr Elder, good to have you aboard, unless you get captured by the DCHL / Delta party line that is, in which case you will receive no mercy from this correspondent.

Questions for Mr McKenzie (No, not you Graham, Grady and Delta directors…. but it’s coming….)

1. Do you agree that as DCC Group Chief Financial Officer (GCFO), you must answer all questions truthfully and disclose all material facts known in relation to issues you are reporting or advising on ?

2. When did you become aware of the partial assignment security sharing deeds with Gold Band Finance and Avanti Finance ?

3. Have you read the above documents ?

4. If you have read the documents, have you ever in your career seen a document with the same sort of provisions, and if not, did this create any alarm to you ?

5. If the document was not one you had ever experienced before, as the GCFO of the DCC, did you seek a further opinion on the legality or enforceability of the document ?

6. If you had read the document, why did you say that there is no relationship between Gold Band and Delta when this is demonstrably not true ?

7. If you had read the document, why did you say that the actions of Gold Band are “out of our control” when this is demonstrably not true ?

8. If you hadn’t read the document, how could you accurately say what sort of relationship there was between Gold Band and Delta ?

9. Did someone else advise you of this, and if so, who was it ?

10. Was pressure from the Mayor, Delta Management or Directors, or DCHL Directors brought to bear on you to say that there was no relationship between Delta and Gold Band ?

11. Do you consider the current court action, which is being paid for by Delta, a prudent use of ratepayer owned funds ?

12. How much has been spent on legal and staff costs on the current, ongoing court cases ?

13. If the document, ie partial security sharing deed that is the subject of the current court action is found by the Court to be illegal, do you think it is appropriate for the CEO and Directors who have allowed this happen and who were in place at the time the document was prepared, approved and signed, to remain in their positions ?

14. If the document is found to be illegal, what is your plan of action you will recommend to Delta/ DCHL/ DCC ?

15. If the document is found to be illegal, will you recommend to Delta/ DCHL/ DCC that legal action be taken against the law firm that prepared the agreement ?

16. Have you been advised in any way informally or formally, of any proposed Delta or DCC or DCHL involvement in the entity that is purchasing the land at the Noble Subdivision mortgagee sale ? And when were you made aware of it ?

17. If yes, precisely what information has been disclosed to Councillors ?

18. If nothing has been disclosed to councillors, why not ?

19. What amount of funding is proposed for this “involvement” and where will it come from ?

20. Is there any limit to further funds being committed to this proposal, if as often happens, budgets and timeframes are exceeded ?

21. As GCFO, do you think it is appropriate that Delta should have spent $3.39M on a questionable at best partial assignment when it’s five-year profit average is $2.6M ?

22. If you were the Delta CEO, would you have done this ?

23. Do you consider that the Management and Directors of Delta have acted ethically and within the law, and in a manner appropriate for a ratepayer owned company during your tenure at the DCC ?

?

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

City Council not the healthy democracy we crave #Delta

We have lost more than one useful community-orientated local body politician to the bullying green sludge running this council. No one quitting the council table these last weeks has been exactly forthright about that, until now. Each has been raising points in common with Councillor Calvert, privately and publicly, in their own way.

Over the last 18 months in particular, Councillor Calvert has been on her game with work and enquiry, and yes, regrettably, only a small part of which can be shown via recorded council meetings; but that says more about Mayor Cull’s chairing and questionable efforts at maintaining political control – as Councillor Vandervis will attest.

Indeed, most of council politics presents behind scenes in non public, but also Covertly as ‘Politics’ has always done —except this time, the public beneficiaries of the fabrication and obfuscation are increasingly irate with not only the dangling Mayoral Chain but also his rather awful menagerie of toothy accomplices and mouldy sidekicks.

The lack of public faith in these numbskulls has brought on a seething concentration of ill will, exasperation and litigious-minded wrath such that Anything could happen, and may, before and after the October elections. Typically, for Dunedin, this goes somewhat understated. But it is real, not imagined. Presbyterian attendance to the cost of unbridled war is uppermost…. until the last ganglion strains and bursts.

With the problems besetting South Dunedin caused by DCC and ORC lamebrains…. there has never been a more Simple time to gain a Strong Majority of sincere and principled elected representatives willing to work hard for the whole of Dunedin City. Cull is eroding public confidence. Walk right over the top of him and the greenies – for Our better future.

Last word: Hilary Calvert, please stand for the Mayoralty and the Council in the 2016 elections.

—

The big issues for ratepayers – cycleways, fraud, what council-owned companies were doing, and maintenance of mud-tanks – were “never on the agenda of council meetings until a rearguard action happens after the problems are identified by others”. –Cr Hilary Calvert

### ODT Online Wed, 20 Jul 2016
Disillusioned with council
By David Loughrey
Dunedin city councillor Hilary Calvert announced yesterday she will not stand in this year’s elections, but not before taking parting shots at some of her colleagues and Mayor Dave Cull. […] She said she was unable to make a difference in a council dominated by councillors “whose focus is on carrying out activities for the benefit of the planet and on advising central government on how they may go about their business, not ours. This preoccupation has been at the expense of the proper and transparent governance of the city.”
Read more

****

Received.
Wed, 20 Jul 2016 at 8:32 a.m.

The following was forwarded to me by a city councillor. I subsequently obtained Cr Calvert’s permission to publish.

—— Forwarded Message
From: [Dunedin City Council]
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 23:39:51 +0000
To: “Council 2013-2016 (Elected Members)”
Cc: [DCC Comms]
Subject: FW: Response to LGOIMA request attached

Dear Councillors,
For your information please find attached a response to a LGOIMA request made by Cr Calvert related to Delta and Gold Band.

[Dunedin City Council]

—

[attachment – click to enlarge]

*Names removed by whatifdunedin

Note: Ask strong clear questions when using LGOIMA to access information held by the councils.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #7 : The Long & Winding Back Road

Delta, dirt road west at night….

—

Received from Christchurch Driver [CD]
Sun, 17 Jul 2016 at 5:08 p.m.

Readers, tonight a post to keep things brewing, but please take that ridiculous tea cosy off your head, put it back on the teapot where it belongs – who do you think you are – Peter Tosh ? !

Firstly, Friday’s riddle and the background on the $3.39M; Mr Crombie proudly declaimed to Dunedin recently that by spending $3.39M of actual cash from Delta’s fast disappearing reserves to buy part of the Gold Band first mortgage, they will receive around $5.1M of the first mortgage debt, which means they THINK they have $1.7M of extra security for their very large core debt. This extra $1.7M is because Mr Crombie is ignoring the 22.50% interest on the $3.39M, ie there is no actual extra security, just Delta forgoing interest, which the other co-holders of the first mortgage are certainly not forgoing. Before we move on, readers should remember that Delta’s average annual profit over the last five years was just $2.6M, and so Mr Crombie and Co have just gambled the entire proceeds of more than an entire year’s profit on this venture, which is far from certain given the ongoing court cases about prior interest in the land. Readers may also want to bear in mind that Delta and the DCHL are in such terrible shape that they will not be paying a dividend to Council to defray rates rises over the next three years, a fact that Mayor Cull is desperate to hide from the public of Dunedin and thus far, the ODT are doing a very good job of assisting him in this endeavour.

In other words, the only beneficiaries of the $100M of work that Delta performed last year were the 70 Delta seat warmers who earned over $100,000 per year, and the Directors, who others, more unkind than your correspondent, have described as unrepentant troughers. Yes, readers, Delta is a corporate welfare scheme, providing a zero return to the ratepayers and is going to remain that way for the next two to three years. We know this because Ms Bidrose and Mr McKenzie explained that is why the city must retain Delta in their recent report on the DCHL companies, so it must be true.

Now as readers of Epic Fraud posts #3 – #6 will know, it is looking very (very) likely that DCHL, Delta and their lawyer Mr Smillie are going to get a comprehensive pasting in Court, the odds being they will be found to have not merely been a party to, but in fact have orchestrated a constructive fraud to ‘cheat a man of a known interest’ and openly flouted the provisions of the Property Law Act.

So what are the consequences of this ?

At the recent High Court hearing, Osborne J asked both Gold Band’s lawyer and the plaintiffs’ lawyer what it would mean if the first mortgage was unable to be partially assigned because the Property Law Act did not permit it.

Neither lawyer had an answer.

Subsequently, one set of lawyers has researched if there is any case law on the issue of partial assignments, and there apparently is not a one, which lends considerable weight to the argument that it is, as it says in the Act, not possible, ie illegal. Osborne J then said he would read up on the Property Law Act, and said that “maybe it meant that everything had to be wound back to before there were any partial assignments” or words to that effect.

Your correspondent would dearly love Mr Crombie (at a pinch, even Mr McKerracher would do) to explain what they think this will mean but, readers, you can guarantee a deathly silence, punctuated only by the sound of frenetic footsteps as there is a mad race to not be the one left standing, facing the inquisition following the court judgement.

Mr Smillie, Delta’s lawyer who cooked up the partial assignment, must be feeling a little anxious? (terrified?) at present. What a contrast to those heady days of early 2011, where it seemed he was on a tear, having schooled that old school crustacean Jim Keegan on the Property Law Act. He probably had a crack at actually walking on water that year, seemingly having pulled off the legal equivalent with the partial assignment. Alas, it appears to be a Febezzle, or “functionally equivalent bezzelment”, as defined by Charlie Munger, Warren Buffet’s cohort. This is where both parties feel wealthy, until the deception is revealed, but in fact it was Gold Band and Avanti doing the bezzeling, not the hapless Mr Smillie and Delta.

Here is what your correspondent thinks is the awful truth : If the first mortgage was “wound back” to pre April 2010, because Delta’s partial assignment was illegal, Delta may lose all of the $3.39M. It is no different than someone who has bought stolen goods and did not have the proof of ownership.

Grady, Graham, and Delta Directors, read this slowly and carefully – say the words out loud if it helps :

1. “An agreement for an illegal partnership will not be specifically enforced even though partly performed, nor can damages be recovered for a breach of it, and if the whole purpose of the partnership is illegal, the court will not recognise it, or enforce any right which the partners would otherwise have, especially when the parties have agreed to enter, as partners, into a transaction, which they knew to be illegal”

Let’s break this down for the Delta turnips :

a) Illegal partnership – check !
b) Partly performed – double check ! —Delta paid donated $3.39M to Gold Band and Avanti.
c) Damages not recoverable – check ! —Avanti and Gold Band get to keep the $3.39M.
d) Whole purpose illegal – check !
e) Knew it to be illegal – check ! (Tom Kain and Jim Keegan advised it couldn’t be done).

Readers, what are the chances of two small, opportunistic finance firms who are never likely to deal with Delta again, saying to Delta’s Directors:

“Well chaps, poor show, poor show indeed ! What about that Judge Osborne – a terrible time for him to have an attack of principles ! We shall not be sharing a drink with him at the Canterbury Club…. but don’t worry chaps, even though we don’t have to, and even though you or the courts can’t make us, and even though we have been put through the wringer first by NIL, then by the landowners, breached our trust deeds, had to pull our prospectus, and now been humiliated in court by your ineptitude, it’s all right, we will pay you back the $3.39m….”

It should be enough to say it is Tom Kain’s favoured finance company we are discussing here.

We should also consider WWDD ? (What Would Delta Do – in that situation ?). Readers, I hardly need to tell you that Delta would have announced a record profit, up by $3.39M, and the CEO and Directors would have all recommended healthy increases to themselves in light of their exceptional performance.

The rustling of paper we hear is Grady, Graham and the Delta Directors editing their CVs to remove any mention of Delta (memo to DCC : complain to Institute of Directors about misleading and false advertising !) and writing the first draft of their resignations, “for personal and family reasons”, of course.

For Delta, the Noble Subdivision is no longer an intermodal multiple train wreck : it is a nuclear career conflagration that will consume all those involved with it.

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: gettyimages.com

Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #6 : What do you mean, Property Law Act ?

Received from Christchurch Driver [CD]
Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 12:56 a.m.

Tonight, readers, we shall examine whatever vestige of credibility is left of the Gold Band Delta defence.

Your correspondent is familiar with legal chicanery, and believes a telling indicator to the pathetically weak state of Gold Band’s submissions in opposition to the stay, and Gold Band’s defence to the allegations of fraud, is the reference to time bar arguments. That is, if a plaintiff has not responded within timeframes set down by the court, then, the other side says, that that material cannot be further considered.

Gold Band’s counsel are clearly the rightful heir of the Kain mantle, as they have made up some time bar rules where none actually exist…. perhaps hoping that no-one, including the Judge, would notice…. what next, forged affidavits ?!

At para 12.8 of the Respondent’s Submissions In Opposition To Stay Application, Gold Band’s counsel, Mr Vinnell, says “The Applicants have forfeited their right to pursue the appeal by not prosecuting it expeditiously.”, and in para 12.3 “The appeal has been deemed abandoned…that is the wording used by the Court in its Notice of Result…”. To which the plaintiffs’ lawyers respond in their Submissions…For The Applicants In Support of Application for Stay Of Execution at para 37, “It is incorrect to say that the applicants abandoned their appeal. The appeal was never withdrawn…The applicants always had the right to seek an extension within three months, which they have done.”

What this shows is that Gold Band’s counsel are clutching at whatever straws they can find, and Delta-like, will try anything to close the eyes of the court to the substantive legal issues. Time bar arguments are the province of the desperate, and desperation is the mood du jour at Delta, DCHL, et al.

However, as always, readers, there is more, and better, and we must try to find humour in the darkest of places, otherwise it would all be too much. Even a brew of Bell’s taken straight would not be enough to revive us….

Prepare a brew, corner a Rastafarian and reclaim a tea cosy, as you will need sustenance into the night while you contemplate the following :

Your correspondent has made much of the fact that Delta has been accused of constructive fraud in previous posts, and is firmly of the view that they have broken the law, not to mention being bereft of any sort of integrity and morality. However, perhaps we should not be surprised at this sort of behaviour from council owned organisations (CCOs).

Your correspondent has been advised that the Christchurch City Council has a policy of “no admission of wrong doing”, so their lawyers have to, shall we say, “say that black is white”. There was a situation at the Noble Subdivision where the CCC lawyers claimed that consent had been given for a road entrance, which was demonstrably untrue, and the plaintiffs made a LGOIMA request to the CCC to confirm that the landowners had not given this consent – or the lawyers admit that they had no authority to admit the error. (The plaintiffs were the ones who had not given consent, so there was no question as to the facts). The LGOIMA response confirmed that the lawyers did not have the authority to admit wrong doing, and continued to say “but there has been no error” as the policy required them to do. Shades of the South Dunedin 2015 floods – perhaps Opus should open up a legal division – Opus do a lot of work for local and central government (another way of saying this, is that the private sector doesn’t touch them with an overlength barge pole) so everything starts to fall into place….

However, the really, really dispiriting news is that we don’t need to adopt a position of moral outrage at Delta’s despicable manoeuvres to deny the landowners’ prior interests at Noble Subdivision under the mortgagee sale, covered under earlier #EpicFail posts. We can remain calm, safe in the knowledge that no outrage is necessary, as Delta have found more ways to break the law involving mere incompetence, instead of fraudulent intent.

No outrage can be possible for mere Delta incompetence. We are all so inured to it that any similar emotion would have been exhausted long before now.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers have made the case at para 29 that apart from the fact that the security sharing agreement was illegal, it is also prohibited by section 84 of the Property Law Act 2007, which states:

“The interest of a mortgagee under a mortgage over property may be assigned by an instrument that…c) states that the mortgagee assigns to the assignee all the amounts and all the benefits of any other obligations secured by the mortgage, and all rights, powers and remedies…and the whole of the mortgagee’s interest…”

And readers, if we turn to Mr Smillie’s Partial Assignment of Debt and Security Sharing Deed (the title is a clear breach of the act in itself !) security sharing agreement, what does it say ? in Clause 3.2 it states “Gold Band hereby assigns to Delta…part of its right, title and interest in the Facility and the Financing Documents”. Hmm…. let’s see, Property Law Act…. “all the amounts and interests”; Mr Smillie…. “part of its right, title and interest”.

As Sesame Street’s Big Bird would say, one of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn’t belong…. can you guess which one…. Before Osbourne J finishes his song ? (on July 29).

However, desperate times call for desperate logic, and rushing to fill the gaping void in Gold Band’s case with legal bluster, is Mr Vinnell. Mr Vinnell attempts some Steve Jobs-like reality distortion : he says at para 13.6(b)

“Despite its title [???!!!] this is probably not an assignment at all – but rather an agreement by the first mortgagee that it holds the mortgage on trust for other parties”. What a risible, ridiculous statement. If a document is titled “Partial Assignment of Debt and Security Sharing Deed”, then we are not left in the dark about its intent. Words mean what they say they mean, Robin.

How could this be possibly be held “in trust” when the “trustee” (Gold Band) is being dictated to by the “beneficiaries”, being Delta, and previously, Avanti. The very slender branch that Mr Vinnell clings to is section 97 of the Land Transfer Act 1952, which contemplates that the Transferee “holds the same as a trustee for any other person”. This is not a trust. We know it is a deed of assignment because that is the title that Mr Smillie gave to it.

But there’s more. The pièce de résistance of Mr Vinnell’s “arguments” – I use the term loosely – is when justifying the partial assignment, he backtracks and says

13.6(c) “Even if there was an assignment, Section 84 of the Property Law Act…doesn’t apply to create any restriction…This is very commonly done in the financial sector.”

Now, using the excuse that if it’s common practice in the “financial sector” then it must be OK (regardless of what the law says) has any sentient person falling about in paroxysms of cynical laughter.

Other “common practices” in finance companies, and the banks to some degree, that has led to New Zealand having a dramatically reduced finance sector, are recklessness, short termism, venality, greed, incompetence and a casual disregard for the law and commercial ethics. (Allied Farmers, Hanover, Provincial, Capital & Merchant, Dominion Finance, Equitable, and our very own St Kilda Finance, are but a few examples). These “common practices” led to an explosion in financial regulation post GFC (Global Financial Crisis).

Next readers, we shall consider what this may mean for Delta and the $3.39M they spent on this – soon to be judged illegal – partial purchase of the Gold Band first mortgage.

But first, this week’s bat riddle (s)

If Delta don’t own a mortgage anymore, but just an unsecured debt from Gold Band and Avanti – how can they have “improved their security position by $1.8M ? (Graham !!!)

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: quotesgram.com – Rasta Homer by LightBeam, tweaked by whatifdunedin

Delta! Internal movement at DCC

Received.

Note | The following emails are not an attempt to lay out All email correspondence that has taken place between parties at or on behalf of Dunedin City Council on the matter of Delta. The What if? Dunedin website owner is given to understand that further correspondence has taken place at the Council to which neither Elizabeth Kerr or contributors to the What if? Dunedin website are privy or privileged.

All documents cited at the What if? Dunedin website, in postings by correspondent Christchurch Driver [CD] and Elizabeth Kerr, about the Noble Subdivision at Yaldhurst and related court actions, have been supplied directly to Elizabeth Kerr by “the neighbour”, one of the original landowners at Noble Subdivision, who is both caveator and plaintiff/litigant.

Below, Cr Calvert has named documents with which she has been supplied independently by ‘the neighbour’. These, further documents and facts in the first instance were earlier supplied to Elizabeth Kerr by ‘the neighbour’ as plaintiff/litigant, according to their proper document status.

—

From: Hilary Calvert
Sent: Thursday, 14 July 2016 11:49 a.m.
To: [Officer, Dunedin City Council]
Subject: Re: Privileged and confidential – Delta securities in ChCh subdivision

Dear [name removed],

The documents to which you refer below I assume are the ones which I circulated.

They are:

Decisions made by the Court of Appeal.
A minute issued by a judge.
Submissions produced by a litigant for the purpose of filing in court.
Comments by myself about Deltya [sic] and the Noble subdivision.
An affidavit which was filed in a court proceeding on which a judgement has now been issued.

I am unsure whether you are suggesting that as a general rule documents associated with a court case are likely to be privileged.
In my view this is not the case.

Indeed privilege will usually only arise in a defensive manoeuvre, namely where discovery is requested and a litigant does not wish to provide the documents requested citing privilege as the reason. Most documents relating to court proceedings are not privileged.

Privilege belongs to the client/ litigant. In these proceedings none of the documents have been claimed as privileged, and there is no suggestion that the DCC has or would have any privilege in any of them.

If the DCC were involved in any of this litigation, and if any of it included any advice given to the Council, and if any of it was claimed as being privileged we would know this by now.

Please advise which of the 5 documents or categories of documents you think as a general rule would be legally privileged, and what you mean by “handling these documents”, particularly because I understand that for some Councillors your caution has been taken to mean that they should not read them.

Please also advise in what situations you would expect to advise Councillors that they as Councillors should take “independent advice”, since the usual expectation would be that the Council would provide advice to Councillors concerning their situation where there are legal issues whihc related to the role of Councillor.

Please also advise what you mean by “independent advice”. Do you perhaps mean that the advice you have given is in some way not independent, or that we cannot rely on your advice to be independent? If so is that the situation in other instances where you offer individual Councillor’s advice, or in fact where you circulate advice to us?

Kind regards,

Cr Calvert

From: Hilary Calvert
Sent: Thursday, 14 July 2016 11:23 a.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Privileged and confidential – Delta securities in ChCh subdivision

I as a recipient of this email waive privilege if indeed there was any for the contents of this email.

Cheers,

Hilary

Begin forwarded message:

From: [Officer, Dunedin City Council]
Date: 7 July 2016 6:32:19 PM NZST
To: “Council 2013-2016 (Elected Members)”
Cc: Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham
Subject: Privileged and confidential – Delta securities in ChCh subdivision

Dear Councillors,

I have been made aware that documents concerning court proceedings about Delta and the Noble Subdivision have been circulated to you. While I do not know what is in those documents, I encourage you to be cautious because as a general rule documents associated with a court case can be legally privileged. If they are privileged you may be found responsible for breaching privilege if you circulate them further. Please ensure that you take independent advice to satisfy yourself that you will not be in breach of any obligations you have as elected members or be in breach of legal privilege in handling these documents.

Regards,

[name removed]
Dunedin City Council

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Notes |
Can legal professional privilege be waived?
Yes. Legal professional privilege can be waived by the client – that is, the client can choose to release the information that is privileged.

Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #5 – Delta and the ghostly hand of Tom Kain

Received from Christchurch Driver [CD]
Sun, 10 July 2016 at 10:41 p.m.

Dear Readers

When your correspondent began to post on Delta’s involvement at the Noble Subdivision, he was expecting to find some noteworthy stupidity on the part of Delta, but had no idea the degree of disgusting amorality and contempt for the law that Delta and its enablers have displayed.  

Warren Buffet once said “show me the incentive and I will show you the result”. Your correspondent believes that Delta’s management team will do ANYTHING to avoid crystallising the loss at Noble, and will hide behind any fig leaf, legal or otherwise for as long as possible – because on a salary package of nearly $500,000 (not far from DOUBLE the salary of the DCC chief executive) Delta CEO Cameron (and possibly others) will have a portion of his salary at risk, subject to meeting certain KPIs. Booking a massive loss of many millions is not usually an acceptable KPI, let alone satisfactory job performance, particularly when CEO Cameron presided over the decision to proceed with Noble in 2009 and has never – publicly – raised any concerns.

This is despite Delta already having lost around $14M at the failed Jacks Point and Luggate subdivisions, and both of those subdivisions were in trouble in late 2009 when the final decision to proceed with Noble was made.

Yes, yes, readers, I hear the saucers rattling as the cups are slammed down, the Choysa leaking onto the Formica  – “this is old news…. CD is retreading ….get to tonight’s point!”

In a recent earlier post, WWTKD – What Would Tom Kain Do ?, your correspondent, somewhat tongue in cheek, posited that Delta had learnt from Tom Kain and had a fiendishly cunning plan A and plan B. Plan A being flouting the law – knowingly – and if that did not work, Plan B being “suing the stuffing out of their law firm”.

It turns out, following some explosive revelations in counsels’ submissions in the recent litigation, that this is ACTUALLY WHAT HAPPENED in respect of Plan A.

In the most recent action discussed in Epic Fraud #4, the counsel for the landowners stated “defeating the applicant’s caveat was the sole purpose behind the Sharing Agreement, as noted by David Smillie, solicitor for Delta: “If the existing caveats are not withdrawn … then there will also need to be a Security Sharing Deed with Gold Band”.” [Email from David Smillie, 4 May 2011]

In an email dated 11 February 2011, Mr Smilllie sets out step by step how the deception will work:

“1. NIL granting a registered mortgage to Delta.
2. Philpott etc consenting to registration of the mortgage (but the caveat remains in place ahead of Delta’s mortgage).
3. Gold Band agrees to Delta having 1st priority.
4. Gold Band agrees to hold its 1st registered mortgage on lot 19 on trust for Delta (to allow sale / enforcement by Delta if necessary so as to avoid caveat issues).”

Mr Smillie concludes by stating, “While not ideal, that seems to be as close as we can get to a 1st registered mortgage position for Delta given the caveat issue”.

Let us allow that to sink in. Delta and their lawyers, had in December 2009 approached the landowners to remove their caveats to allow Delta to register a first mortgage for their debt. The landowners did NOT relinquish their caveats, but instead gave Delta a “caveators consent” and allowed Delta to register a second mortgage behind their caveat on the express terms that Delta security include their caveated interests and provisions.  

Delta were then able to register a $5M second mortgage. However, no doubt in light of the Delta debacles at Jacks Point and Luggate that had made a massive hole in Delta’s finances by then, Delta wanted more than a second mortgage. Delta was 100% prepared to give the static clothesline to the very landowners who had provided them with security in the first place. (Without this second mortgage security, Delta would not have been able to even contemplate their despicable deceptions).

Bottom line, readers : Delta’s response to the landowners’ consent to provide them with $5M of security is this attempt to defraud the landowners of their known prior interests.

Readers, you may say say, oh well that is simply what CD thinks, and the landowners, let’s just wait and see what the Judge says, or, if necessary, the Court of Appeal. They are the experts, not some lightly caffeinated Christchurch Driver.   

Perhaps, readers, perhaps, but what does Gold Band’s lawyer say in light of this onslaught ? Unbelievably, the lawyer (a Mr Vinnell from Anthony Harper) states that “Delta ….has not given any instructions to Gold Band under the Security Sharing Deeds for those lots”. [see 13.6 (h) New arguments, in Respondent’s Submissions in Opposition to Stay Application, CR Vinnell for Gold Band, 27 June 2016]

WTH ? What about the email from Gold Band’s CEO refusing the landowners’ offer to redeem their first mortgage because Delta would not allow them to ?! Is an instruction the same as a prohibition or a refusal ? Delta did not need to provide any instruction to Gold Band as it was made perfectly clear to Gold Band, years before the official NIL default, what Delta’s expectations were – in Mr Smillie’s email of 8 March 2011, “so as to be able to overcome the caveat if it became necessary to enforce Delta’s security”. [para 20, Submissions of Counsel for the Applicants in Support of Application for Stay of Execution. Duncan Cotterill solicitors, 20 June 2016]

Mr Vinnell is out on a slim reed indeed. He then blusters that none of this is new. Maybe not new Mr Vinnell, but true.

Another excuse offered (and amazingly, accepted by Judge Osborne), was that it was “commercially expedient” for the security sharing agreement to cater for Delta rather than the applicants. [para 25, Submissions of Counsel for the Applicants in Support of Application for Stay of Execution. Duncan Cotterill solicitors, 20 June 2016] This is the basis of the appeal : That expediency is not a justification for land transfer fraud. And yes, readers, there is definitely more on this to come.    

Readers, we in fact don’t have to wait for the judicial system. We have an expert who has tried judges’ patience at every court in the land with similar spurious arguments, and there is no one, and I mean no –one!, who has a better view about how far the law can be bent and abused, having been arguably (how he loved that word!) the country’s leading exponent of vexatious litigation.

I refer of course to the late Tom Kain. Yes, Mr Kain’s palsied and quivering hand extends beyond the grave….

The smoking gun from Mr Kain : The landowners’ counsel writes [para 22], “It appears that Noble, Delta and Gold Band suspected their arrangement sailed very close to the wind, as an internal email of 13 October 2011 from Tom Kain notes:

“Some time ago when we asked Jim Keegan whether or not Delta could be granted security over Gold band’s mortgage and he did not think this could be done. However David Smillie, on behalf of Delta, believes this can be done….”

Jim Keegan is a senior partner at Cavell Leitch, a large Christchurch law firm. Mr Keegan graduated from Law School 44 years ago in 1972, and is the head of their (large) specialist property team. He is the go-to lawyer for a number of large developers. Mr Smillie, on the other hand…. is Delta’s lawyer.  

Tom Kain was the man, readers, who proffered an agreement to a party at another subdivision some years ago. The party signed the agreement, and then Tom Kain promptly sued the party for agreeing to it, having been the one who prepared the agreement. And it didn’t stop at the High Court. Tom Kain took the case all the way to the Privy Council, where he lost comprehensively. The Law Lords said derisively of Mr Kain’s argument, “it offends both equity and common sense”.

It has come to this. Delta will go to the dark places that Tom Kain – Tom Kain ! would not go. Delta offends not only equity, common sense, but integrity, honesty, commercial practice and common decency. It’s no wonder they had to shut down in Christchurch. They would be commercial pariahs. Even hard nosed Australian contractors would baulk at this. No one would trust them to clean even a mudtank (Sorry, Fulton Hogan!) after this behaviour.  

But readers, there’s more. The central defence of the Gold Band / Delta in opposition to the stay action discussed in Epic Fraud #4 was that there was a buyer for the mortgagee sale, and if the stay was allowed the buyer may walk. Gold Band wouldn’t disclose the buyer, but your correspondent understands that Delta / DCHL have already advised or intimated to the DCC earlier in the year that Delta is part of the buyer’s consortium, and if that is the case, Gold Band and their lawyers are misleading the court by omitting this very material fact.  

And then there is the inevitable Delta misdirection. In response to a letter about the Noble debacle (ODT 3.3.16), CEO Cameron stated categorically, “We are no longer involved in this type of civil construction, and won’t be again.” Grady, how can this statement be true if Delta is part of the mortgagee sale and will have ongoing “involvement”, and you knew this when you made this statement? If this is the case your credibility is further diminished (is there any left?).   

Mr Crombie, Mr Cameron, and ALL the Delta Directors (aka turnips) : If and when the courts find that Delta has acted outside the law, this will end some careers at Delta and DCHL. Massaging numbers to hit your KPIs is not going to help you now. There will be fast and furious duck-shoving and plaintive cries of ignorance. Your correspondent’s message tonight : The cover-up is always worse than the crime, and you are all complicit in that. This extra legal activity has been going on for years, on top of the actual massive debt, and not one of you has expressed any misgivings to your Owners, the DCC, that even ‘potentially’ illegal behaviour is going on. Not a single one of you emerges with any credibility.

Your correspondent understands that at this very moment, time is up for some of you. In the DCC garden, the overripe, malodorous turnips are being turned over. This is a very good thing.  

You heard it here first at What if?, readers.

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: wesharepics.info – their zombie bad policies, tweaked by whatifdunedin

Note | Litigation privilege requires:
1. that the document(s) come into existence when litigation was either already under way or was ‘reasonably apprehended’ (meaning it’s a serious or realistic prospect); and
2. the ‘dominant purpose’ for creating the document must have been to enable the client’s legal adviser to either conduct the case or advise the client on that litigation.
Can legal professional privilege be waived?
Yes. Legal professional privilege can be waived by the client – that is, the client can choose to release the information that is privileged.

Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #4 : Tales from the Courtroom….

Received from Christchurch Driver [CD]
Fri, 8 Jul 2016 at 1:19 a.m.

Readers, you were promised some instalments on the current Court Action(s), and your correspondent made a prediction that the “Security Sharing Deed” prepared by Delta would be destroyed and shown to be illegal and unenforceable with career ending consequences for Delta Directors, advisers and staff alike.

We can report that things are brewing nicely. In rugby terms, while the ref hasn’t pulled out the red card, he is definitely reaching into his pocket. There must be some collective buttock clenching at Delta, in the DCHL Boardroom, and particularly, at the law firm that wrote the Security Sharing Deed. But let us digress onto other matters tonight, and save the big security sharing reveal for next week, closer to when Osborne J releases his decision.

Pour a brew, pull up a chair, and digest with Bell’s Best the following :

This latest case (because there have been many court actions on the Noble Subdivision) is where the plaintiffs, being the original landowners of the Subdivision, are seeking a stay on a court decision that removes the caveats that protect their interests in the land. The landowners had already won in Court twice before on this issue, against the Owner, NIL, but now Gold Band and Delta are effectively re-cycling that argument, indulging in financial carborundum (wearing down) of the plaintiffs. The landowners have appealed the High Court decision to the Court of Appeal, but if the mortgagee sale on the land occurs, which is due to go unconditional on July 29 2016, then the plaintiffs will be unable to enforce any Court Decision, as title will have passed free and clear to the new owner. (Legal term : The appeal will be rendered nugatory).

Your correspondent has read the submissions of counsel for the Court Action (CIV-2014-409-716), and even though this is just an application for a stay, the oasis is blooming again with plenty of material that is of particular interest to Delta’s Owners. (That is you, readers). It will take several posts, but here is the bottom line that springs to mind : after reading the submissions, there are no shades of grey. There is a stronger argument, and a weaker one, and unlike Socrates, Gold Band’s lawyer is under no threat -whatsoever- of execution for tampering with that order….

The Delta / Gold Band lawyer has made a series of statements that do not stand up to forensic examination. Put another way, they are compellingly stupid assertions.

A bit of legal background, readers : to have the Court uphold a stay, a precedent ruling – Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) v Bilgola Enterprises establishes the factors that must be weighed

1. Will the appeal be rendered nugatory if the stay is not granted
2. Bona fides of the applicants
3. Will the successful party be injuriously affected
4. The effect of third parties
5. The novelty and importance of the question involved
6. The public interest in the proceedings.

In this case 1, 3, 5, 6 are the relevant factors.

Gold Band’s solution to 1. is to propose that if the plaintiffs are successful in the Court of Appeal, in order to enforce their rights for the wrongful removal of the caveats they would then have to sue Gold Band for damages, as the property would have been sold. In a classic foot-in-mouth manoeuvre, Gold Band’s lawyer then gives lie to the myth of Gold Band as a corporate colossus that is well versed and able in legal battles, by stating in para 11.4 that a paltry $1.2M mortgage plus interest is causing Gold Band “serious issues as to its ability to operate as a finance company within its Trust Deed”. Gold Band only has $6.4M total capital and made a profit of $532,000 FY 2015. We can be very sure it is in absolutely no position to face a court action for millions, and your correspondent says it would not exist by the time the action got to court. Advantage : Plaintiffs !

Having opened with that foolish position, the Gold Band defence then quickly descends to the ludicrous on 3. (Gold Band being injuriously affected) by stating that “The evidence on this is compelling” …. “Gold Band has spent $26,000 on Mortgagee Sale Advertising and $104,000 on legal fees associated with the sale”.

Gold Band claim that they entered into a contract for sale of the land on May 2 2016, and that “the contract is conditional and the purchaser could walk away as a result of the stay”. We then get the sob story about what a trial and a burden the first mortgage is on Gold Band, “serious issues….ability to operate….” as noted above, which is just utter rubbish. Gold Band made out like bandits when they sold parts of the first mortgage (as per our earlier post, The Little Finance Company that did (Delta). ). At 22.50% compounding, with an imminent settlement there would be lines out the door to buy this mortgage……IF IT WERE LEGAL TO SPLIT A FIRST MORTGAGE……

Putting that aside (just for the minute Graham, Grady, you can bank on more forensics on THAT little topic !) – our hapless Gold Band lawyer fails to disclose that in July 2014 Gold Band valued the Noble Subdivision – as is – at $20.58M, and Gold Band’s CEO, Mr Brennan deposed recently that the first mortgage is just $8M, so barring Delta-like incompetence, there is no way that Gold Band will not recover the $130,000 costs they spent on the sale, and until they get it, they get to charge 22.50 % on those costs !! What’s not to like !! Game : Plaintiffs!

To complete the rout (Game – Love), the plaintiffs’ lawyers note that under the terms of the tender, [21.4] Gold Band can defer settlement of the mortgagee sale up until August 2017 which will allow plenty of time to resolve the caveat issue before the land is “sold”…. but wait Batman, said Robin…. Is it actually going to be sold ?

Voiceover….
Conveniently, the identity of the purchaser of the mortgagee sale is not revealed because “The purchaser has not consented to its disclosure,” say Delta Gold Band.

Batman : How very, very interesting. We are now getting to the nub of the entire #EpicFail matter. I say this “Purchaser” is in some way related to the following parties or associated interests : NIL, Apple Fields, Tom Kain’s Estate, Gold Band, Justin Prain, Gordon Stewart, and of course the DCC, DCHL, and Delta, and that DCC, DCHL, Delta are going to have a CONTINUING INVOLVEMENT in the Noble Subdivision for YEARS TO COME.

Robin : But Batman, how do you know this ?

Elementary, my trailing junior sidekick : In the February 19 2016 Delta press release, there was the phrase, “A successful conclusion of the sale….will remove the main obstacle to the subdivision being put on the market and Delta beginning to recover its outstanding debt”. Robin, words are a universal form of communication – they mean what they say, and with my comprehension SKILLS it is clear that these obfuscating lawyers or PR people are trying to fool the good people of Dunedin that a sale of the land is imminent and Delta will get (some) of its money back. But look at the words. If there is a “successful conclusion of the sale” to an arms length purchaser, then it’s a one shot deal – Delta will get all they are going to get once the prior interests are paid. Nothing more to be done. Take the lumpen loss and move on. But then it says FOLLOWING the conclusion of the sale, “the subdivision being put on the market and Delta BEGINNING to recover its debt”. The only way this can be true is if Delta are involved in the party purchasing the land, and the crucial tell-tale word, BEGINNING, indicates that until sections are sold, then Delta will not receive any money, if they receive any at all. Your caped correspondent says that this is several years, and several court actions away.

Lastly, in a fit of supreme arrogance, Gold Band’s lawyer says that there is no public interest in the case, and there is nothing novel or important involved. Nothing to see here Judge, the Court can move on…. Must not waste “public resources of the court system”, although as noted earlier, the same lawyer happily recommends the landowners waste their private resources on yet more litigation against Gold Band instead of a stay. He demeans the landowners, saying, they have “a history of running appellate litigation in this manner”. Memo to lawyer : accuracy demands that you amend that to “successful appellant litigation”….

No public interest ? This lawyer clearly doesn’t read What if?, live in Dunedin, or read the National Business Review (who compared Delta management to turnips), and is oblique to the revolutionary idea that the ratepayers of Dunedin must have some way to know if indeed the company they own has acted like a corporate criminal, as has been alleged in court documents. Because dollars to doughnuts, the ODT will not be reporting on it.

Readers, this week’s Bat riddle

Q : Why won’t the ODT make any report on the court decision on the Security Sharing Deed arrangement outcome ?

A : Because new ODT CEO Mr Grant McKenzie said there was “no relationship” between Gold Band and Delta, when there are dozens of emails and a security sharing deed that show this is not true, and public humiliation is not generally considered an effective form of career advancement, especially if the “relationship” that was denied is held to be illegal and fraudulent.

Stay tuned readers, same bat-time, same bat-channel, same Bell’s Best.

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #3 : Security Sharing and not Caring….. who’s got that Constricting Feeling ?

Updated post.
Thu, 30 Jun 2016 at 9:23 p.m.

—

Received from Christchurch Driver [CD]
Tue, 28 Jun 2016 at 10:33 p.m.

Readers, in recent posts we have kicked the tyres of the Delta assets, put it up on the what-if hoist and peered into the grimy underside of the business. Unlike the Delta’s hired hands Murray & Co, we have considered the running costs. Our conclusion was that Delta was a very tired machine, running badly, with an overpaid driver at the wheel. It failed all the financial leakdown tests and was going to be an early entrant to the knackers yard because it was pulling a grossly oversized semi-trailer of debt. There, that’s all of the earthmoving metaphors needed for the evening….

However readers, in addition to all the other bad news we have received as owners of Delta, there is one further thing not considered by Murray & Co in their ask-no-questions, see-no-problems report that will further decimate its value. That is the likely cost to Delta of the impending court case that alleges Delta is a party to constructive fraud.

The High Court was advised on 13 June 2016 that Delta and Gold Band Finance are to be joined to the existing proceeding against Noble Investments Ltd.

Readers, after tee-ing up the obligatory Choysa – just one cup tonight, thanks – may wish to refer back to the Epic Fraud posts to refresh their memory about the story so far. In the first post it was explained how DCC claimed that there was no “relationship” with Gold Band, but in fact Delta had prepared a Security Sharing Agreement which Gold Band signed, which was a dictatorship, where Gold Band could not act in relation to the first mortgage in any way, without Delta’s permission.

Delta is 70% owner and 100% controller of that mortgage. While Delta is not yet named in the Court action, Delta is hiding behind the name of their security sharing partner Gold Band. That is, Gold Band’s name is on the court papers with the authority and instruction of Delta who is controlling Gold Band.

In the second Epic Fraud post (What Would Tom Kain Do ?) it was noted that Delta’s law firm had received a letter alleging Delta was a party to constructive fraud. What if? did not publish this post until recently as it was concerned that Council would somehow deem this defamatory or some other breach of arcane local body law. (Council has plenty of resources to seek to stifle legitimate debate, but none it seems, to clean the filters in the Portobello Rd stormwater pumping station). As Cr Vandervis says, Council should stick to its core tasks.

Your correspondent, in the name of duty, re-opened the arid pages of the security sharing agreement that is pivotal to Delta’s public assurances that all is well and its “investment” of $1.2M over the face value of the debt to acquire, is prudent and sensible (?). Expecting only to find parched prose, and arcane legal minutiae, yet again, there was a blooming oasis of sustenance for more posts.

Tonight we shall hold some clauses of this deed up for scrutiny, allowing it to twist and flap forlornly in the breeze, just like the broken street signs at the desolate and unfinished Noble Subdivision.

Clause 2.4 d) of the security sharing document has the remarkable sentence : where Delta instructs Gold Band that it “May refrain from doing anything that would be contrary to the law”. In any document this correspondent has ever worked with, obeying the laws of the land is not optional. Most legal and contractual documents have words to the effect that nothing in the document shall be contrary to the laws and acts current at the time.

So a) this statement was entirely unnecessary…. if the law of the land was intended to be followed. But b) if some ultra vires legal deception was intended, then some “clarification” was needed.

“May refrain” is not a ringing endorsement of a party’s intention to stay on the right side of the thin blue line. And when the instruction is in response to a long and detailed list of obligations imposed by Delta on Gold Band, it is hard to shake the notion that Delta did contemplate that some illegal activities were possible or even probable to recover some of its wasted millions. So it instructed Gold Band that they “may refrain” from any Delta instruction that may not be legal and proper, in place of the usual expectation to act lawfully…. at all times. Delta’s priority was what was “enforceable” under the document; Delta of course not being overly concerned with proper form or legal niceties such as performing major subdivision work without a consent.

But while a nod is as good as a wink to a sharp commercial operator like Gold Band, Delta are literal in outlook, and so, two clauses later, is the payback for Gold Band agreeing to “may refrain” from illegal activities, instead of acting lawfully at all times. At Section 2.4 f) in return for Gold Band doing precisely what Delta bids in terms of protecting its first mortgage interest, Delta promises Gold Band “Delta will pay all costs and expenses, “legal or otherwise” of any action taken by the trustee”.

Now Delta’s lawyers will rush in and say, CD is a buffoon – and a barely literate one at that !! He doesn’t have basic comprehension SKILLS ! “Legal or otherwise” is referring to the “costs and expenses” not the following words that say “of any action taken by the trustee”. Readers, that may be so, but the words legal or otherwise in relation to costs and expenses are redundant. The phrase all costs and expenses means precisely that – all of them. On the other hand, a learned Judge, having already knitted their brows over the words “may refrain from illegal acts”, when they see the tangled syntax of 2.4 f), in regard to “payment of all costs and expenses, legal or otherwise, of any action taken by the trustee” will look at the context, and will very likely conclude that Delta are at least contemplating illegal acts and then are reassuring Gold Band that they will still pay for the costs and expenses of those same illegal actions.

[excerpts]

Yes, yes, readers, I hear you – CD is being sensationalist – grasping at straws ! Trying to stay relevant ! Delta would be completely stupid to try and document illegal activities !! Sadly, readers, hubris is contagious, and Delta have a history on this project of operating on Delta terms, and the law be damned. However, there is another reason and that is, if Delta did instruct Gold Band to act illegally, and the question of payment was not sorted out, Delta could pull another static clothesline tactic out of the Tom Kain archives and refuse to pay Gold Band. Delta would say, à la Kain, Gold Band should have known, as a finance company experienced in mortgage lending, that what Delta were asking was illegal…. and they did this at their own risk and cost ! Take that, and your spurious cost claims with you, Gold Band ! ….What a tangled web of suspicion and mistrust the Noble Subdivision has left !!

The bottom line : While Delta deny they influence Gold Band in any way, these clauses stipulate that Delta will fund Gold Band’s legal costs incurred in the attempts to defeat the landowners’ prior lawful caveats and interest in the land. And let us not forget that Gold Band wanted to sell their first mortgage interest to the landowners, and Delta refused to allow it. They had that power under the deed – a dictatorship, remember, readers ? Your correspondent says that this sort of cynical desperation moves Delta from the merely dense category to the despicable.

Readers, citizens, this talk of illegal acts is not conjecture. In upcoming posts, we shall count the ways in which Delta is alleged to have not acted lawfully. Delta’s potential joinder to constructive fraud is just the start. If the allegations of these further acts are upheld, the consequences for Delta, and various high level DCHL and DCC personnel are just too awful to contemplate…. for the moment.

But tonight, spare a thought for the lawyer(s) who prepared this security sharing deed. It was undoubtedly never intended to see the light of day, much less be forensically examined and trashed in the good pages of What if?

There must be a sense of dread and unease in the weeks to come. Your correspondent says this imprecise and unenforceable deed is going to be systematically destroyed. Someone, we dare not name, will have indeed, That Constricting Feeling….

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: newyorker.com – Levin 17/12/2001, tweaked by whatifdunedin

Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #2 : WWTKD – What Would Tom Kain Do ?

Received from Christchurch Driver [CD]
Sun, 26 Jun 2016 at 11:59 p.m.

Dear Readers

The What if? site has attracted a lot of (unwelcome) attention from higher echelons of the municipality, in recent weeks, both in relation to the #EpicFail posts and others, with intimations some posts are defamatory. (What, this correspondent ? genteel to a fault !). Of course all the while claiming there is no problem with criticism and opinion….. just as long as it’s not too accurate.

This does the valuable service of confirming that we are getting close to the source of some very sensitive and awkward matters, and we need to box clever to avoid the constrictive embrace of harassments, and box clever we shall indeed.

Accordingly, your correspondent has taken a long tea break, but is soon to be active once more as the legal case regarding the Noble Subdivision first mortgage starts soon. This will be better than a soap opera :

Will Captain Crombie steer the good ship Delta from the treacherous legal waters ? Has the boat taken on too much debt and is it listing irreparably ? Will the head office staff make a safe escape with the aid of a golden parachute ? (Mixing airplane and boat metaphors here !)

Stay tuned readers, same bat-time, same bat-channel, and your correspondent will attempt to make the complex digestible, and show where Delta fits in all this.

Meanwhile readers, first some revision : cast your minds back to the Delta #EpicFraud post where your correspondent suggested that Delta were about to have an action brought against them for constructive fraud. It is your correspondent’s experience that Dunedin lawyers are notorious gossips (they make tea break at a primary school staffroom look like a sombre diplomatic forum).

Someone, who knows someone, who knows a person has confirmed that a letter was received by a Dunedin law firm in recent times, say… Friday April 1 2016, accusing Delta of constructive fraud under the Land Transfer Act and asking the firm if they were authorised to accept legal papers in relation to an action against them. Well, Gentlemen of Delta, I bet the Minties and Favourites got a thrashing, upon learning THAT ….now, on June 13 2016, the plaintiffs have formally made application to the High Court that Delta be joined to the action as a party to the alleged constructive fraud.

Alert readers of the #EpicFraud post will remember mention of the security sharing agreement for Delta, the “dictatorship” that would attempt to defeat the prior interests who had caveats, and how it is alleged that this was a form of constructive fraud. We can imagine there was a lot of rattling saucers, and a whole lot of Bell’s best consumed right now by its scribes… a local Dunedin law firm we dare not name. Writing unenforceable documents tends to give clients a good reason to blame the authors of such documents for difficulties, generate complaints to legal disciplinary forums, and claim damages and costs against a law firm.

This is the point of tonight’s teaser post….

This correspondent thinks that perhaps Delta have watched and learned from the dismal Noble Investments Ltd (NIL), and they have come up with a fiendishly cunning plan A and plan B. Plan A : Get an eager law firm to write an unenforceable document. If it works, great. If it doesn’t work, Plan B is to blame the law firm, apologise profusely to the offended parties and then sue the stuffing out of the law firm ! After all, it is a comprehensively feeble excuse for any law firm to say “But you told us to write it !”. Delta would then climb on their soapbox and say “We would NEVER do anything illegal, and if it was, why didn’t you advise us ?!”. Brilliant ! That is a static clothesline playbook right out of the Tom Kain archives !! A plan so cunning you could pin a tail on it and call it a weasel !! (with apologies to Blackadder)

But readers, we must confine ourselves to the facts, not indulge in lateral speculations that may injure the feelings of parties.

So, Gentlemen of Delta, can we please have the facts ?

Your correspondent thinks this is the last station on the line for the Delta Gentlemen to have a semi-controlled exit from the Delta / Noble runaway trainwreck, with credibility intact, by giving Dunedin the full account of what, why and how, before the impending court action does it for you. It’s not your money, it’s ours, and if Delta is now facing an action for constructive fraud; on top of losing many millions (acknowledged in MSM by those authorised to speak); someone – we say, the Auditor-General – will look closely at who was responsible. Who might that be ? Some clues : Who was heading up Delta when this deal was inked in 2009 ? Who has allowed this deal to become a toxic malignant cancer for seven long years ? How on earth did Delta (it appears) come to be facing an action for constructive fraud ? If there is any truth to these allegations, then who is to be held accountable ?

In a previous post, we suggested a legal opinion be obtained on Delta’s culpability, from someone far from Dunedin. More than ever, that needs to happen. Are there local politicians who can find some intestinal fortitude to assist on this compounding mess in election year ?

And readers, let’s keep a weather eye on complaints to the New Zealand law society over the next 6-12 months…..

█ For more, enter the terms *delta* or *noble* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: twitter.com – derailment, tweaked by whatifdunedin after reading the Delta SOI 2016/17

Delta #EpicFail —Noble Subdivision : [rephrased] Conflict of Interest

Election Year : The following opinion is offered in the public interest. -Eds

—

Received from Christchurch Driver [CD]
Sun, 13 Mar 2016 at 6:00 p.m.

Dear Readers and What –if Mobsters

Your correspondent is given to understand there are several of you who enjoy his posts, which is certainly gratifying to him, if not to the DCC. However readers are taxing mistresses, they demand fresh and current material for their reading pleasure.

Discerning readers of taste and sophistication, of which you are without exception, are firmly of the view that there is nothing as old as yesterday’s news, and tonight’s post is indeed recycled and somewhat elderly. But wait, as Noble Investments Ltd said to the Judge Osbourne, I can explain why I have reneged on my obligations….

This week Mr Graham Crombie did more than re-release Delta CEO Grady Cameron’s press release. He advised What if? that he considered this post below “defamatory” to Mr McKenzie. And said that in effect he will soon have a letter from his lawyers about this. Although, What if? hasn’t actually seen the letter yet. We think it is in Mr Crombie’s other pocket, tangled up with some minties wrappers and the latest Harcourt’s update on the Noble Subdivision mortgagee sale process. Yes, that document has gone missing too.

This Correspondent was cut to the quick. Him ? Defamatory ? A Tom Kain Klone ? Forsooth, he faints at the sight of his own blood !

Friends, Romans, Dunedinites, I come not to bury Mr McKenzie but to praise him. (Eventually).

Here is the post, with all traces of defamation removed…. for Mr Crombie’s reading pleasure….

****

Certain of you, have commented how in recent Council meetings DCC GCFO Grant McKenzie has several times now said he has a “conflict of interest”, when the question of the DCHL financial performance is raised by Councillors. He does not look comfortable in those situations.

OK, so what is this conflict of interest ? Mr McKenzie is the financial eyes and ears of the DCC. He is employed to preserve and maintain the financial stability of the DCC. This includes managing the hundreds of millions of debt that the DCC and its DCHL companies have; and having full oversight of the DCHL companies, which are in theory meant to be significant revenue generators for the DCC. (But, as Mr McKenzie admitted to Cr Lee Vandervis recently, DCHL companies will generate ZERO income (ie dividends) to the DCC for the next three years at least). However, despite the lack of dividends, they are still very significant DCC assets and it is completely right that Mr McKenzie should know in detail what is going on at DCHL.

This correspondent does not see how a conflict of interest can arise.

DCHL companies, owned by DCC, are for the sole purpose of generating a financial return to ease the rates burden. The historical amount of contributions provided by DCHL is shouted from the rooftops at every available opportunity by DCHL boosters. To this correspondent, there are only two ways in which Mr McKenzie could have “a conflict of interest” as he describes it. One is if the actions of the DCHL companies exceeded the risk profile that Mr McKenzie felt was appropriate for a DCC owned entity. The other is if the DCHL Companies were not in fact providing full or accurate information about their activities or intended activities to DCC or the elected representatives, and placing DCC at risk that way.

Readers, and Mr McKenzie, need to remember that Mr Larsen said in his report that the DCC needed to have a very low threshold for commercial risk, and much better communication. Mr McKenzie is there to make sure that DCHL doesn’t exceed a very low risk threshold and to tell us what he has found there. Tick the boxes for those items.

But who is paying Mr McKenzie ? The answer is the DCC. Therefore Mr McKenzie does not have a conflict of interest. He has a clear obligation to disclose to Council and ratepayers anything that is of concern at DCHL. He is not paid by council to shuffle from one foot to the other and claim a conflict of interest when asked questions of DCHL financial performance.

We should spare a thought for Mr McKenzie. He is the senior DCC staff member that has to represent the DCC’s interests. Those interests, first and foremost are to ensure that those DCC owned DCHL companies operate with a very low threshold for commercial risk. On the other hand, against him are legions of DCHL directors, who, if nothing else, appear extremely good at sugar coating bad news, or cloaking it in such a way as to make discerning the facts extremely difficult. (Mr Crombie, please read the Auditor-General’s report before you go reaching into your pocket). Add that to the subtle and not so subtle peer pressure, and it is easy to see Mr McKenzie has a tough job safeguarding the interests of ratepayers in respect of DCHL.

Refer to the video record (Part 1 and Part 2) for the full council meeting of 22 February 2016. This correspondent believes there is a (very) high possibility Mr McKenzie has not been told the full facts about Delta at Noble, or it has been spun to him with a few key, inconvenient facts omitted. If this is in fact correct and he acknowledged this, and then advised the city what he does know and provided an accurate assessment of the actual risk to ratepayer funds against the allowable “very low risk” threshold, he would have the support of DCC upper management and probably a job for life – if he wanted it.

Mr McKenzie would not have to look too far to find inspiration or a precedent in Dunedin. Just a couple of blocks away at the Hospital in fact. In 2008 the recently appointed Health Board Chief Financial Officer, Robert Mackway-Jones, discovered some unusual transactions that was of course the $16.9M Michael Swann fraud. Mr Mackway-Jones didn’t let up, pushed the issue and found that neither the Board Chair, Mr Richard Thomson, nor the Board CEO, knew of the transactions. Mr Mackway-Jones was the hero of the Swann case; and Mr McKenzie only has to present the facts to Dunedin ratepayers to achieve the same status.

This correspondent understands Mr McKenzie is already well regarded within DCC upper ranks. But if he did this he would be so popular with Dunedin ratepayers he could run for Mayor next time around….

Dunedin ratepayers just need Mr McKenzie to represent their interest, and forsake the tea and cakes, and mutual backslapping with DCHL Directors.

This will mean clashes with the DCHL directors at times……..

Tis food for thought, mobsters (as the Clash would say…. Revolution Rock, London Calling, 1979).

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 11.3.16 Delta peripheral #EpicFail : Stonewood Homes & ancient Delta history
● 6.3.16 Delta #EpicFail —Noble Subdivision : Tea & Taxing Questions
● 6.3.16 Delta #EpicFail —Nobel Subdivision : A Neighbour responds
● 5.3.16 Delta #EpicFail —Noble Subdivision —Epic Fraud
● 4.3.16 Delta —Noble Subdivision #EpicStorm Heading OUR WAY
● 4.3.16 Delta #EpicFail Noble Subdivision : Councillors know NOTHING
● 2.3.16 Delta #EpicFail Noble Subdivision : A Dog, or a RAVING YAPPER?….
● 1.3.16 Delta #EpicFail… —The Little Finance Company that did (Delta).
29.2.16 Healthy views Monday midnight to 6:00 p.m.
● 29.2.16 Delta #EpicFail Noble Subdivision : NBR interested in bidders
● 28.2.16 Delta #EpicFail Noble… If I were a rich man / Delta Director
● 27.2.16 Delta #EpicFail Noble Subdivision Consent : Strictly Optional
● 27.2.16 Delta #NUCLEAR EpicFail —Noble Subdivision : Incompetent…
● 25.2.16 Delta #EpicFail: Mayor Cull —Forced Sale Fundamentals 101
● 24.2.16 Delta #EpicFail —Noble Subdivision: Cameron, Crombie & McKenzie
● 23.2.16 DCC: DCHL half year result to 31 December 2015
19.2.16 Delta: Update on Yaldhurst subdivision debt recovery
15.2.16 Delta / DCHL not broadcasting position on subdivision mortgagee tender
30.1.16 DCC Rates: LOCAL CONTEXT not Stats —Delta and Hippopotamuses
● 29.1.16 Delta #EpicFail —Yaldhurst Subdivision ● Some forensics
● 21.1.16 Delta #EpicFail —Yaldhurst Subdivision
21.1.16 DCC LTAP 2016/17 budget discussion #ultrahelpfulhints
10.1.16 Infrastructure ‘open to facile misinterpretation’…. or local ignore
15.12.15 Noble property subdivision aka Yaldhurst Village | Mortgagee Tender
21.9.15 DCC: Not shite (?) hitting the fan but DVL
20.7.15 Noble property subdivision —DELTA #LGOIMA
1.4.15 Christchurch subdivisions: Heat gone?
24.3.15 Noble property subdivision —DELTA
23.3.15 Noble property subdivision: “Denials suggest that we have not learned.”
17.3.15 DCC —Delta, Jacks Point Luggate II…. Noble property subdivision

● Gold Band Finance Prospectus No. 31 Dated 22 April 2015
View this 126pp document via the NZ Companies website at: https://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/321896/documents — go to Prospectus uploaded 23 Apr 2015 14:33

● 14.5.14 (via DCC website) Larsen Report February 2012
A recent governance review of the Dunedin City Council companies was conducted by Warren Larsen.

● 20.3.14 Delta: Report from Office of the Auditor-General
Inquiry into property investments by Delta Utility Services Limited at Luggate and Jacks Point

█ For more, enter the term *delta* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: the-rudy.com – The Clash Revolution Rock w2 tee

Delta peripheral #EpicFail : Stonewood Homes and ancient Delta history

Received from Chrsitchurch Driver [CD]
Fri, 11 Mar 2016 at 1:35 a.m.

Your correspondent is going to meander down some tangential subdivision side streets tonight (not the main collector road, the excavator won’t fit on those….) and consider the curious case of Stonewood Homes.

It was probably inevitable given the very shallow gene pool that South Island companies fish in for independent directors, that a name would pop up that had also had some previous form with Delta.

However, before we excavate that particular trench, let’s consider why the shoring gave way on Stonewood, why the temporary support from the bank buckled and the subsequent structural failure – (the engineering metaphors are flying thick and fast tonight….)

Your correspondent is very bemused at the vast sums that a large number of building and engineering companies seem to be able to generate – in the negative. An internet search shows a long and regular list of failures. (Delta Civil Division would doubtless have joined them had it not had ratepayer funds to prop it up). Hartner Construction in 2001, about $20M, Wellington Construction in 2012 (unknown), Mainzeal Construction in 2013 (between $60-130M, dependent on if related party transactions can be unwound) and, closer to home, Southland’s own Amalgamated Builders (also with a branch in Dunedin) who managed to lose $20M in just two years when they bought a reputable Auckland company, Goodall Construction, renamed it Goodall ABL and then proceeded to destroy it in 2001.

There is some illuminating information online that shows the insane amount of risk that companies in the construction sector assume for what appears to be very little reward.

In the ABL Goodall case, property commentator Bob Dey described Goodall ABL as “a victim of trying to win market share on no margin, with a maximum guaranteed price contract in place”. Quite why anyone would seek to perform somewhere between $60-80M of work in two years for no return sounds like Delta-level stupidity, and certainly, the result was the same : ABL Goodall went so comprehensively broke, mainly with subcontractors’ money, that it was a major catalyst for the Government of the day to introduce the Construction Contracts Act in 2002 which provided some protection for Subcontractors. Proof that Southlanders do have some uses other than milking cows (readers, I jest).

Delta may yet provide compelling evidence for the Government to remove the “power of general competence” that Territorial Authorities received from the Government in 2002 that started many down the path towards illusory piles of gold that vanished in a mirage, along with a lot of public funds.

Memo To Mr Crombie : The CCC have admitted defeat and are trying to sell their Delta equivalent, City Care : why not join up and make it a two-for-one deal ?

But back to Stonewood. A trio of heavy hitters arrived in February 2014 to help fix the Stonewood Homes brand. In the press release it was noted that in 2013, Stonewood had consented 407 homes, had a turnover of $133M, and was aiming for 500 consents in 2014.

Your correspondent now will do something unheard of – making excuses for Delta…. as follows :

Building houses is not the same as civil contracting or commercial building. Those sectors all indulge in unique one off projects, with different specifications, different designers and engineers who have different standards. Lots of risk with ground conditions, legal disputes are legion.

But “group” housing is just different variations on the same cookie cutter. Standard designs, tweaked a little here and there, flat sites, lots of repetition, production line type processes. Houses started and finished around 14-16 weeks. Deposits before you start, a sales force to keep the numbers flowing. Any amount of back costing and analysis off repetitive designs to check what the numbers should be. It’s all been done before, lots of other companies are doing it so “benchmarking” your company against your competitors is easy.

Stonewood weren’t building difficult or expensive homes : Their average house cost around $325,000 in 2013. (Turnover of $133M for 407 homes).

Receivers KordaMentha confirmed that Stonewood had built up “significant” debt since the earthquake. Let us assume that Stonewood’s losses began in 2012 continuing in 2013, 2014, 2015. The loss is currently $30M. Your correspondent understands that the ASB is owed $5M and that typically, of the 110 houses underway at any one time, only 30 were profitable, and this was known within the company.

That Stonewood were unable to make any money at all, but instead went deeper into debt over a four-year period of huge demand is certainly testament to some Delta-level management deficiencies. One, or one and a half years of losses is grave but understandable, two to three is indefensible, and four years just plain carelessness !

Assuming an average turnover of about $115-120M per year (ie a peak turnover of $133M in 2013), this means that each year they lost $7.5M on average. (It was probably less in 2012, a lot more in 2015).

Put another way, on every house they built, over a four-year period, they lost around $21,000. Yes, they can definitely have a seat at the Delta table. And one Stonewood Director has sat at that table before, and that is Mr Jim Boult.

Now Mr Boult, while no Tom Kain in terms of litigation, certainly knows his way to his lawyer’s office, so this correspondent shall confine his comments to the facts :

Mr Boult, you may recall, had a 50/50 Joint Venture (JV) with Delta on the failed Luggate Development, where Delta lost $5.9M. Delta’s terms there were similar to Noble : A $5M advance to cover the subdivision work, payable only when the sections were sold.

Mr Boult utilised a valuer on behalf of the JV who had previously valued the land for his company. The valuer, in calculating the value of the land assumed a figure of $55,000 per section for Development costs. The actual cost was $105,000 per section. The valuer assessed the value of the land Delta bought a 50% share in, at $10.7M. There were potentially 172 sections that could be developed on the land. Six of the 172 sections were sold. The remaining land, with (a relatively small amount of) Delta’s improvements, was eventually sold…. for $1.5M. This information is all contained in the Auditor-General’s Report (14 March 2014).

A small but noteworthy detail included in the Auditor-General’s report was that the terms of the Joint Venture meant that Delta staff were not paid for any time they spent on the JV or the project, unless it was directly related to the Civil Work. A Project Management firm, Signal, was employed to manage the project. However Mr Boult sought and received $5,000 per month “for his time” spent on the Luggate JV.

Back to Stonewood, it turns out that Mr Boult was unable to make any difference to turn around Stonewood’s fortunes in 2015. Mr Boult’s enthusiasm for Stonewood : “I am truly delighted to be the chair and help guide the company in its future direction” lasted just 12 months. Nonetheless he obviously saw something he liked at Stonewood as he confirmed last week that he had quit as a Director of Stonewood on 1 February 2016, because, in concert with some employees of Stonewood and some franchisees, he was trying to buy Stonewood. This seems unusual behaviour for the chair of a large company, but then your correspondent is not a member of the Institute of Directors, and is uncertain of the usual directorial protocols about directors or chairmen of the board trying to buy a company they just resigned from last week. Perhaps a reader experienced in such matters could provide enlightenment.

Yes readers, I can sense your impatience : Join the dots you say ! This correspondent’s opinion, and it is only an opinion from the outside looking in, is that Mr Boult, was looking to buy not only Stonewood, but is most likely involved with a mortgagee sale bid to purchase the Noble Subdivision at Yaldhurst. The intention being that Stonewood would be the builder of the subdivision, both effectively controlled by Mr Boult.

Mr Boult knows the subdivision business, and he now has an inside view of how housing companies are run (or more accurately, how not to run one).

Despite Mr Boult’s defeat at the hands of the Brothers Chow in respect of Stonewood, a bid for Noble may well be attractive to him.

Now given Mr Boult’s history with Delta, it would seem highly likely that if this were the case, there would have been some contact between Mr Boult and his people and Delta.

Can Delta or its Directors or Mr Crombie confirm ? And of course as is the refrain, that no more public funds will be put at risk ?

—

New Zealand Companies register: Delta Utility Services Limited (453486)

█ Directors: David John Frow (appointed 25 Oct 2012), Trevor John Kempton (01 Nov 2013), Stuart James McLauchlan (01 Jun 2007), Ian Murray Parton (25 Oct 2012)

More: Historic data for directors

Related Posts and Comments:
● 10.3.16 Noble Subdivision next on the shopping list !!! You couldn’t…
● 6.3.16 Delta #EpicFail —Noble Subdivision : Tea & Taxing Questions
● 6.3.16 Delta #EpicFail —Nobel Subdivision : A Neighbour responds
● 5.3.16 Delta #EpicFail —Noble Subdivision —Epic Fraud
● 4.3.16 Delta —Noble Subdivision #EpicStorm Heading OUR WAY
● 4.3.16 Delta #EpicFail Noble Subdivision : Councillors know NOTHING
● 2.3.16 Delta #EpicFail Noble Subdivision : A Dog, or a RAVING YAPPER?….
● 1.3.16 Delta #EpicFail… —The Little Finance Company that did (Delta).
● 29.2.16 Delta #EpicFail Noble Subdivision : NBR interested in bidders
● 28.2.16 Delta #EpicFail Noble… If I were a rich man / Delta Director
● 27.2.16 Delta #EpicFail Noble Subdivision Consent : Strictly Optional
● 27.2.16 Delta #NUCLEAR EpicFail —Noble Subdivision : Incompetent…
● 25.2.16 Delta #EpicFail: Mayor Cull —Forced Sale Fundamentals 101
● 24.2.16 Delta #EpicFail —Noble Subdivision : Cameron, Crombie & McKenzie
● 23.2.16 DCC: DCHL half year result to 31 December 2015
19.2.16 Delta: Update on Yaldhurst subdivision debt recovery
15.2.16 Delta / DCHL not broadcasting position on subdivision mortgagee tender
30.1.16 DCC Rates: LOCAL CONTEXT not Stats —Delta and Hippopotamuses
● 29.1.16 Delta #EpicFail —Yaldhurst Subdivision ● Some forensics
● 21.1.16 Delta #EpicFail —Yaldhurst Subdivision
21.1.16 DCC LTAP 2016/17 budget discussion #ultrahelpfulhints
10.1.16 Infrastructure ‘open to facile misinterpretation’…. or local ignore
15.12.15 Noble property subdivision aka Yaldhurst Village | Mortgagee Tender
21.9.15 DCC: Not shite (?) hitting the fan but DVL
20.7.15 Noble property subdivision —DELTA #LGOIMA
1.4.15 Christchurch subdivisions: Heat gone?
24.3.15 Noble property subdivision —DELTA
23.3.15 Noble property subdivision: “Denials suggest that we have not learned.”
17.3.15 DCC —Delta, Jacks Point Luggate II…. Noble property subdivision

● Gold Band Finance Prospectus No. 31 Dated 22 April 2015
View this 126pp document via the NZ Companies website at: https://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/321896/documents — go to Prospectus uploaded 23 Apr 2015 14:33

● 14.5.14 (via DCC website) Larsen Report February 2012
A recent governance review of the Dunedin City Council companies was conducted by Warren Larsen.

● 20.3.14 Delta: Report from Office of the Auditor-General
Inquiry into property investments by Delta Utility Services Limited at Luggate and Jacks Point

█ For more, enter the term *delta* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Images: (top) stonewood.co.nz – Chow Bros | stuff.co.nz – Jim Boult by Stacy Squires