Maclean Computing owes $3m
Subscribe now for $100 (23 issues) and save more than 37% off the cover price!
Get the latest news from Computerworld delivered via email.
Sign up now
Following the demise of Maclean Computing a liquidator’s report released last night shows the Auckland-based IT company owed creditors more than $3 milion.
According to an “Estimated State of Affairs” prepared by Waterstone Insolvency, Maclean’s liabilities include $1,072,000 owed to preferential creditors, $1,050,000 to secured creditors and $930,000 to unsecured creditors.
Waterstone says Maclean’s known creditors include big players such as Gen-i, ANZ and IBM as well as smaller organisations such as Alzheimer Auckland.
At the time of liquidation, Maclean’s total assets were estimated to be worth $1,130,000.
Waterstone says an official audit has not been conducted into the accuracy of Maclean’s accounts.
In liquidation cases the Inland Revenue, secured creditors and employees are the first to be paid out.
Computerworld sought comment from the liquidator whether Maclean Computing CEO Chris Maclean is among the secured creditors.
Waterstone general manager Steven Khov replied that "Chris in his personal capacity would be an unsecured creditor."
Maclean Computing was put into liquidation on July 13. Chris Maclean, son of founder Allan Maclean, claims the liquidation occured as a result of a theft from the company by a former financial controller.
The liquidators simply state that Maclean was “unable to pay its debts as they fell due,” which is the legal definition of insolvency.
On July 18 Chris Maclean announced that he and a business partner had purchased the assets of Maclean Computing from Waterstone. The new company is named Maclean Technology Ltd.
Waterstone liquidator Damien Grant said a competitive sales process for the assets took place over five days, but wouldn’t say how many bids were in the running, or what was paid for the assets.
When asked if the sale was in keeping with the ‘Phoenix Law’, or sections 386A-F of the Companies Act (which govern whether the assets of a company in liquidation can be bought by affiliated parties), Grant replied: “I hope it would be, otherwise I’m going to prison.”
He says the process was hastened by publicity that the liquidation received on the Computerworld website, including an article about competitor Code Blue making a play for Maclean Computing's customers.
Some of the prominent Maclean creditors:
- Alzheimers Auckland
- ANZ National Bank
- BDO Spicer
- Citrix Asia Pacific
- Hayes Knight
- Ice House
- Ingram Micro
- Mako Networks
- Mercury Energy
- PB Tech
- Southern Cross Healthcare
- Telecom / Telecom Rentals
- World Exchange
- Young & Shand
Posted by Anonymous at 14:33:49 on July 25, 2012
"Focus on quality of service and the revenue will follow."
There are far to many IT companies in Auckland, chasing the dollar at the detriment of their customers and staff. Looking through the list of creditors, I can't believe how many of these are customers. Now, unless I'm mistaken, shouldn't the customers be paying Macleans money and not the other way around. That is of course unless the quality of delivery was so poor, that Macleans had to right credit notes!
The business of IT is evolving, but the business of doing what's right for your customer and not what's right for this months target has not, and will not change. The words "Trusted Partner" are meaningless when staff are incentivised by revenue. KPI's should focus on quality and customer satisfaction. Customers are more than willing to pay for IT services when the costs are fair and the solution is the right fit. Find something that you're good at and learn to partner with other companies. Do not try and spread your staff too thin by being everything to everyone. Your customers will not thank you, and neither will your staff.
Take head "IT companies", or you might find yourself having the same fingers that are pointing at Macleans, pointing at you !
Posted by Anonymous at 21:13:04 on July 23, 2012
I feel for all MC/MT infrastructure as a service customers the rest can run and good on them if they do.
Posted by SNMP at 9:57:37 on July 23, 2012
Posted by Anonymous at 9:06:29 on July 23, 2012
Posted by Anonymous at 13:12:15 on July 23, 2012
Posted by spectator at 10:56:38 on July 23, 2012
The comments thread on this article is closed for the remainder of the weekend and will re open on Monday.
Posted by Sarah Putt at 15:35:56 on July 21, 2012
Posted by Anonymous at 13:10:26 on July 23, 2012
Posted by Sarah Putt at 13:52:40 on July 23, 2012
#*A defamatory statement has been defined as one 'that tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, or that tends to cause the person to be shunned or avoided, or that tends to cause the person to be exposed to hatred, contempt or ridicule'. Examples are claims or suggestions of fraud, dishonesty or incompetence
#*The plaintiff is not required to prove that the statement was untrue to establish his or her claim, as the law assumes that defamatory statements are untrue. The defendant bears the burden of proving that the statement was true
#*If the words convey a defamatory meaning, the defendant will be liable even if this was not intended
#*There is no requirement to prove specific damage or loss, the law assumes loss if a statement is defamatory
Posted by Anonymous at 0:13:38 on July 28, 2012