Who is really to blame for the sinking of Dick Smith?
Elizabeth Knight
469 words
27 February 2016
Sydney Morning Herald
SMHH
First
3
English
© 2016 Copyright John Fairfax Holdings Limited.
Comment
Dick Smith enters a new chapter this week as the real search for culpability begins.
Which group of people will ultimately be in the frame for the corporate trainwreck that's going to leave 3000 people without jobs, close 363 stores and obliterate a decades-old brand name?
It is time for the corporate regulator to intervene and work through the chain of events that led to the demise of Dick Smith. This corporate collapse won't simply be chalked up to inept management.
This business was sold to public investors a couple of years ago for more than half a billion dollars.
And the people who …show more content…
That bank loan was negotiated only six months before Christmas and one assumes the banks, National Australia Bank and HSBC, did their due diligence.
They clearly could not have seen anything negative in the numbers. Either that or they weren't looking hard enough.
Receivers who act for the banks and administrators that are now in the process of winding up the business have the task of investigating how it all happened.
The courts will ultimately determine if Dick Smith's auditors and directors had fulfilled their legal duties, a scenario common in contentious corporate failure cases.
There is no legal recourse if management and directors made honest business mistakes. There is absolutely no doubt that this happened.
The legally important questions that need to be asked are about whether the company that was floated to public investors was accurately portrayed in a financial sense. There'll be plenty of poring over the Dick Smith
Elizabeth Knight
469 words
27 February 2016
Sydney Morning Herald
SMHH
First
3
English
© 2016 Copyright John Fairfax Holdings Limited.
Comment
Dick Smith enters a new chapter this week as the real search for culpability begins.
Which group of people will ultimately be in the frame for the corporate trainwreck that's going to leave 3000 people without jobs, close 363 stores and obliterate a decades-old brand name?
It is time for the corporate regulator to intervene and work through the chain of events that led to the demise of Dick Smith. This corporate collapse won't simply be chalked up to inept management.
This business was sold to public investors a couple of years ago for more than half a billion dollars.
And the people who …show more content…
That bank loan was negotiated only six months before Christmas and one assumes the banks, National Australia Bank and HSBC, did their due diligence.
They clearly could not have seen anything negative in the numbers. Either that or they weren't looking hard enough.
Receivers who act for the banks and administrators that are now in the process of winding up the business have the task of investigating how it all happened.
The courts will ultimately determine if Dick Smith's auditors and directors had fulfilled their legal duties, a scenario common in contentious corporate failure cases.
There is no legal recourse if management and directors made honest business mistakes. There is absolutely no doubt that this happened.
The legally important questions that need to be asked are about whether the company that was floated to public investors was accurately portrayed in a financial sense. There'll be plenty of poring over the Dick Smith