Liquidator message on Whale Oil

Posted on the Whale Oil website tonight:


CRL Logo

It is the liquidator’s opinion that the director of Social Media Consultants Limited, Juana Atkins or someone directed by her has illegally used the customer database for the benefit of another business entity.

This appears on the face of it to have been done for the purpose of misappropriating the company’s goodwill and causing the company loss, therefore breaching the duties as a director to preserve the assets of the company for the benefit of creditors.

The Whale Oil blog and everything associated to the blog remains the property of Social Media Consultants Limited (in liquidation).

If you have any questions please contact info@restructuring.co.nz

 

 

Previous Post
Leave a comment

29 Comments

  1. John Whyte

     /  2nd August 2019

    I have a string of expletives.

    Not that someone did it but the liquidator is publicly publishing this. It’s not a tame liquidation at all.

    Matt Blomfield promised on Facebook a while back he would own whaleoil.co.nz and now I think he really will.

    Reply
    • Seems an odd way of doing things for a liquidator (not that I know much about how they do things), but it’s also probably an odd set of circumstances and odd behaviour of the director.

      Reply
      • Patricia

         /  3rd August 2019

        My understanding is that in a forced liquidation the liquidator has the interest of the creditors at heart. If the old business has transferred the subscriber data base to the new business and is profiting from it – thus depriving the receivers the option to continue trading, damages may be sought from the new company.

        Reply
        • Gerrit

           /  3rd August 2019

          The subscribers database, from an financial position for the receivers, would have to have a monetary value placed upon it for it to be considered an asset.

          Now the receivers could put a figure on the value on the database making it trade able and transferable.

          In reality how valuable is the database?

          How quickly would a new entity establish a new subscribers database, making the old obsolete and worthless?

          it is a problem when trying to quantify the value of customer listings, or intellectual property in general. So a creditor receives the subscribers database. What is it worth? Nothing, as the subscribers will have moved to the new entity powered by their own free will.

          Reply
          • In this case there is an easily discernible value for the OA. These are 300 odd subscriptions to the Whaleoil site that have been prepaid and have time to run.

            In effect a competitor to the Whaleoil site have just stolen that value, not paid for it to the bankrupt estate, and to the creditors. If anyone with an interest, including those subscribers, makes a complaint to the police, then that is the way that the police will have to follow it up.

            Reply
            • Screeching Widow

               /  3rd August 2019

              You’re mistaking Slater’s bankruptcy with Juana Atkin’s liquidation of her company Social Media Consultants which owns the Whale Oil blog. This has nothing to do with Slater or the Official Assignee.

            • Slater was a director until 1 February 2019, and a shareholder until 22 February 2019. The liquidator was appointed on 25 March.

              The message on the website includes “It is the liquidator’s opinion that the director of Social Media Consultants Limited, Juana Atkins or someone directed by her has illegally used the customer database for the benefit of another business entity”.

              I wouldn’t presume what is meant by that, or who it could imply.

            • John

               /  3rd August 2019

              Those subscribers have paid in advance for a service however that is no longer being performed on Whaleoil.co.nz so the total value to the liquidator is a debt of the services remaining.

              In other words the subscribers could complain to the liquidator they haven’t received those services remaining and ask for a refund. Therefore the future value is less than zero it’s a debt.

            • Duker

               /  3rd August 2019

              Doubt that terms of service include refunds…it’s Slater after all.

              After all the new whaleoil is BFD….big freaking deal

          • Patriot Realm

             /  3rd August 2019

            Equity in terms of a database must surely be evaluated in terms of brand lyalty and content loyalty. As far as I am aware, the contributors to the website do not get paid so how can any equity be put forward if there are no employees?
            No one pays the writers. No one pays the commenters so what value exists?

            Reply
        • Patriot Realm

           /  3rd August 2019

          Surely shutting down the site has destroyed any equity the site may or may have had?

          Reply
        • Patriot Realm

           /  3rd August 2019

          Then why did they shut down the website and thus deprive the creditors of any opportu ity to get some dosh?

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  3rd August 2019

            Whatever…customer database isn’t theirs to pass onto another entity where Slater and Atkins now work
            An architect was found guilty just last week of taking IP from his old job to his new one.

            Reply
  2. Oi, you can’t do that. Dumbarses.

    It’s a attempt to defraud creditors. But what else would we expect from the beached whale and his [deleted] wife?

    There is no escape from this, Slater. You are [deleted]. Now get to work on whatever you want to call your site, and pay up.

    Reply
    • Pete, this censorship of my comment is not acceptable. You’ve made it look like I swore. I didn’t. I labeled Atkin factually based on the past history of her marriage, and pointed out that Slater, having lost a lawsuit, is enslaved to the winner of that lawsuit. This is malicious. I want to be reassured that I can comment here without this nonsense going on. Otherwise I won’t waste my time.

      It’s bizarre, because you clearly dislike these people far more than I do.

      Reply
      • I think you went too far with some of your comments, and here that’s my judgement to make.

        I’m holding them to account for their actions and behaviour, which at times I think is despicable, but I don’t think that justifies what I think were nasty references.

        It should be fairly simple to stick to criticism and holding to account without getting too personal.

        I also need to consider legal implications, given that a number of vexatious attempts have been made to shut this site down and prosecute me.

        I can’t assure you or anyone of free shots here. I think that I allow free speech here to a large degree, but I’m not going to allow a free for all.

        You should be aware of the conditions of the privilege of participating here. If you don’t like me exercising my right to draw limits where I see fit then you are free to choose not to comment here.

        Reply
        • They were incredibly tame comments with no legal implications. You’re entitled to do whatever you like with your blog, but good Lord…

          Reply
  3. Loki

     /  3rd August 2019

    He really doesn’t give a damn.
    The new site is populated with gigabytes of content that has simply been lifted from the old site.
    So. Data lifted, subscribers lifted, content moved and rebranded and if you copy the new URL onto a home screen button on an iPhone it displays with the old Whaleoil logo.
    I doubt the liquidator will do much about it but it displays the usual arrogance and disregard

    Reply
  4. Tipene

     /  4th August 2019

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the Insolvency & Trustee Service takes a “public interest” position on this one, given the high profile of the offenders. All it would require to trigger such a response is some media articles from creditors about the blatant illegality of the move, and its effect on them. All Govt departments and Crown entities have media risk mitigation people to respond to such negative press, and their legal pockets are bottomless.

    Reply
  5. Tipene

     /  4th August 2019

    Here is the link to lodge a complaint:

    https://www.insolvency.govt.nz/support/lodge-a-complaint/

    Reply
  6. Conspiratoor

     /  4th August 2019

    Vested interest anyone? Expect the Toons to go hard after the dirty dog after he outed one of them so cruelly some years ago

    Reply
    • He isn’t involved in the liquidation. He ceased as a shareholder (and director) before the liquidation.

      From the first liquidator’s report:

      1. Appointment
      On 25th March 2019, the shareholder of the bove named company passed the following resolution:

      “That Victoria Toon, Chartered Accountant of Auckland, be appointed as liquidator of the company”.

      The message the liquidator on has posted on the website made it clear that director is responsible for breaching duties – that is, Juana Atkins. ‘He’ may have a vested interest, but if Slater is involved then he is putting Atkins at some risk.

      Reply
      • Conspiratoor

         /  4th August 2019

        I wasn’t referring to Slater, i have no idea whether or how he is still involved. Do you?

        Reply
        • I don’t know. Who did you mean by ‘he’?

          Reply
          • Conspiratoor

             /  4th August 2019

            Simon Toon just happens to be the major shareholder in Corporate Restructuring Ltd, and coincidentally also happens to have found himself on the wrong side of a whaleoil post several years ago. One not for the fainthearted

            Reply
            • Are you suggesting that that may be having an effect on how the liquidation is being conducted?

              There’s been a bit of this implied interference in the liquidation process, with no evidence apart from a historic post on WO (tht is no evidenee of current interference or conflicts of interest). It has whiffs of an attempt at a dirty diversion from the conduct of those with responsibilities for the company being liquidated.

              If the liquidator is found to do something improper (I haven’t seen any evidence of that) then they should be held to account – properly, and not by insinuation online.

              And if the company being liquidated and it’s director should likewise be able to be held to account. I think that major creditors will be doing what the can to ensure that happens.

            • Duker

               /  4th August 2019

              WO article was a teacher ( Simon Toon)at [suppressed ?] high school who was ‘indiscreet’ when he was alone in classroom. Widely reported at the time , hardly a conflict.
              Companies office list 13 different people under surname Toon

  1. Liquidators stamp brutal message on Whaleoil site claiming ‘misappropriation’ – 121 News
  2. Liquidators stamp brutal message on Whaleoil site claiming ‘misappropriation’ - NICEBRO gg

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s