ProvencoCadmus staff to continue battle with ANZ for NZ$1.6 mln in preferential employee claims after receivership

ProvencoCadmus staff to continue battle with ANZ for NZ$1.6 mln in preferential employee claims after receivership

By Gareth Vaughan

More than 100 former ProvencoCadmus employees are to fight an Employment Relations Authority decision that gifts their NZ$1.6 million in preferential employee claims to ANZ in the wake of the sharemarket listed electronic payments provider's receivership.

Barrister Philip Skelton, representing the former ProvencoCadmus staff, confirmed to interest.co.nz that appeal papers have been lodged with the Employment Court and served. A hearing is not likely before April or May next year.

The appeal comes after Employment Relations Authority member Alastair Dumbleton last month ruled in favour of ProvencoCadmus' receivers, KordaMentha's Brendon Gibson and Michael Stiassny, effectively handing the NZ$1.6 million to ANZ. The bank, New Zealand's biggest, recently reported record annual net profit after tax of NZ$1.085 billion for the 12 months to September 30.

The NZ$1.6 million is comprised of wages, holiday pay and redundancy entitlements. Under the Receiverships Act and Companies Act employees are given preferential creditor status up to a specific amount each, which at the time of ProvencoCadmus' demise was NZ$16,420. KordaMentha has accepted that the amounts claimed are legitimate.

However, KordaMentha argues that before the receivership, the employees were employed solely by holding company ProvencoCadmus, whereas the staff themselves maintain they were employed by ProvencoCadmus and at least one of the subsidiary operating companies.

At the Employment Relations Authority hearing KordaMentha's lawyer Tim Clarke argued the staff were employed solely by ProvencoCadmus Limited, which as a holding company, had no inventory or accounts receivable from which preferential creditor claims can be paid. ProvencoCadmus' only major asset was shareholdings in subsidiary trading companies including Provenco Payments, Provenco Retail Automation, Cadmus Payment Solutions, and Provenco Technology.

Thus the Employment Relations Authority was tasked with determining the identify of the employer or employers. In his ruling,  Dumbleton sided with KordaMentha in deciding ProvencoCadmus was the sole employer, leaving ANZ in line to pocket the NZ$1.6 million.

ANZ pulled the plug on ProvencoCadmus in August 2009, and tipped the company into receivership seeking to recover NZ$23.8 million, after ProvencoCadmus tried unsuccessfully to secure funding from its major shareholders Todd Capital and Navman founder Peter Maire. At the time of the receivership ProvencoCadmus chairman Rick Christie blamed an unsustainable debt burden, sluggish investment and product markets, and a weaker-than-expected trading performance for the demise. The ProvencoCadmus group was created through the May 2008 merger of Provenco and Cadmus who both had ANZ as their bank.

The latest receivers' report shows ANZ has recovered just NZ$8.85 million with NZ$14.95 million still outstanding and Gibson saying there'll be a "significant" shortfall.

This article was first published in our email for paid subscribers this morning. See here for more details and to subscribe.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

4 Comments

double post!

Surely the person or company employing these people are person/s benefiting from their labour or who they provided the labour to, something a holding company can't do. Shear nonsense and trickery.

The judge was a fool and this decisions should surely get turned over.

I thought this directly contravened the latest legislation on the issue, I hope they win. Have they no conscience not even a little bit. How the he'll is a employee going to know if they are signing up with a holding company or not? Also in the article posted a while ago it was stated all bar one of the employees signed the new contract, what happened for them, and why didn't they sign?

Sorry redcows, had to edit some of your more colourful language. Not sure how the staff who didn't sign the contract fared. I will try to find out. Cheers.