ACCforum: Acc Corporate Structure - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Acc Corporate Structure Some very curious company listings

#1 User is offline   ernie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 27 October 2004 - 09:39 PM

Check out this info from the Companies Office on ACC related companies. I am no expert in corporate structure, but it does seem very strange that the first three list Wilson and McGreevy personally, rather than ACC, as the only shareholders.

So did the fourth, Catalyst Risk Management Limited, until a share float that was purchased by ACC and registered 11 October 2004 - resumably to acquire the case management portion of CRM, as reported on page 19 of ACCs 2004 annual report.

The fifth of these companies, Dispute Resolution Services Limited, lists in its most recent return its sole shareholder as ACCIDENT REHABILITATION & COMP INSURANCE LTD , a company that does not exist.


949529 CATALYST INJURY MANAGEMENT LIMITED

Registration Date: 18 OCT 2004 Time: 08:42:08
Document Type: 2004 Annual Return
Barcode: 10046807364
Submitted By: Harry Gibbons
PO Box 242
Wellington
Directors

ELVIDGE, Robert
3 Fitzroy Road, Napier

FORTUIN, Gregory
22 The Anchorage, Whitby, Porirua City

RACTLIFFE, William Anthony
36 Punjab Street, Khandallah, Wellington

ROBERTSON, Linda
8 Firth Terrace, Karori, Wellington

WILSON, Garry Maxwell
23 Corrondella Grove, Lower Hutt

Share Parcels
Number of Shares 1

Shareholder(s) MCGREEVY, Gerard Michael 80 Anne St, Wadestown, Wellington

Number of Shares 1

Shareholder(s) WILSON, Garry Maxwell 23 Corrondella Grove, Lower Hutt


915647 WORKCOVER NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Registration Date: 27 AUG 2004 Time: 14:46:52
Document Type: 2004 Online Annual Return
Submitted By: Keith McLea
PO Box 242
Wellington

Directors

MCGREEVY, Gerard Michael
80 Anne Street, Wadestown, Wellington

WILSON, Garry Maxwell
23 Corrondella Grove, Lower Hutt

Share Parcels

Number of Shares 1

Shareholder(s) MCGREEVY, Gerard Michael 80 Anne Street, Wadestown, Wellington

Number of Shares 1

Shareholder(s) WILSON, Garry Maxwell 23 Corrondella Grove, Lower Hutt

915652 ACC REHABILITATION LIMITED

Registration Date: 02 FEB 2004 Time: 08:32:20
Document Type: 2004 Online Annual Return
Submitted By: Keith McLea
PO Box 242
Wellington

Directors

MCGREEVY, Gerard Michael
80 Anne Street, Wadestown, Wellington

WILSON, Garry Maxwell
23 Corrondella Grove, Lower Hutt


Share Parcels

Number of Shares 1

Shareholder(s) MCGREEVY, Gerard Michael 80 Anne Street, Wadestown, Wellington

Number of Shares 1

Shareholder(s) WILSON, Garry Maxwell 23 Corrondella Grove, Lower Hutt


915666 CATALYST RISK MANAGEMENT LIMITED

Registration Date: 25 JUN 2004 Time: 17:00:17
Document Type: 2004 Annual Return
Barcode: 10046564863
Submitted By: HARRY GIBBONS
COMPANY SECRETARY
PO BOX 242
WELLINGTON
Directors

ELVIDGE, Robert
3 Fitzroy Road, Napier

FORTUIN, Gregory
22 The Anchorage, Whitby, Porirua

RACTLIFFE, Willaim Anthony
36 Punjab Street, Khandallah, Wellington

ROBERTSON, Linda
8 Firth Tce, Karori, Wellington

WILSON, Garry Maxwell
23 Corondella Grove, Lower Hutt

Share Parcels

Number of Shares 1

Shareholder(s) MCGREEVY, Gerard Michael 80 Anne Street, Wadestown, Wellington


Number of Shares 1

Shareholder(s) WILSON, Garry Maxwell 23 Corrondella Grove, Lower Hutt

915666 CATALYST RISK MANAGEMENT LIMITED

Registration Date: 11 OCT 2004 Time: 12:31:59
Document Type: Particulars of Shareholding
Submitted By: RIPPON, Glenys
BELL GULLY
BELL GULLY
INFORMATION SERVICES
PO BOX 4199

Summary of Share Parcel Changes


New Share Parcel(s)
Number of Shares 2,600,000 was -99

New Shareholder(s) ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Shamrock House, 81-83 Molesworth Street, Wellington


915656 DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES LIMITED

Registration Date: 22 JUN 2004 Time: 12:02:04
Document Type: 2004 Annual Return
Barcode: 10046209180
Submitted By: KEITH CHALLANDS
PO BOX 2272
WELLINGTON

Directors

ADLAM, John Gavin
2 Putnam Street, Northland, Wellington

DAVIS, Wendy
25 Farnham St, Vogeltown, Wellington

KENNERLEY, Brent
53 Kano Street, Karori, Wellington

POTROZ, Ray
57 Sunnyhills Ave, Hamilton


Share Parcels

Number of Shares 2

Shareholder(s) ACCIDENT REHABILITATION & COMP INSURANCE LTD Wellington
0

#2 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 27 October 2004 - 10:03 PM

have a look through these too:

http://www.accforum....?showtopic=1409
0

#3 User is offline   ernie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 27 October 2004 - 10:25 PM

Here is another one with Wilson and McGreevy as the only shareholders.

915647 WORKCOVER NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Registration Date: 27 AUG 2004 Time: 14:46:52
Document Type: 2004 Online Annual Return
Submitted By: Keith McLea
PO Box 242
Wellington

Address for Communication
PO Box 242
Wellington
Attn: Corprate Secretary


Directors

MCGREEVY, Gerard Michael
80 Anne Street, Wadestown, Wellington

WILSON, Garry Maxwell
23 Corrondella Grove, Lower Hutt

Share Parcels

Number of Shares 1

Shareholder(s) MCGREEVY, Gerard Michael 80 Anne Street, Wadestown, Wellington

Number of Shares 1

Shareholder(s) WILSON, Garry Maxwell 23 Corrondella Grove, Lower Hutt
0

#4 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1700
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 24 October 2009 - 04:31 PM

I am a bit confused as to who is purchasing what.

To me it looks like gerals Mcgreesy and Garry Wilson owned companies but were wanting ACC board approval to purchase other companies.

Just whos money were these two playing with.

From April 2004 Board minutes

[quote]16 Catalyst: Purchase Proposal
A paper was tabled that sought agreement from the Board for funding the purchase of the CRM Group by Catalyst. CRM had approached Catalyst to find out if it was interested in purchasing key parts of the CRM business. This issue has been discussed with the Minister for ACC who supported the concept.
Catalyst has investigated the CRM business and assessed that it fits into Catalyst’s operations. The acquisition of CRM’s clients for third party case management will provide Catalyst with the opportunity to establish a long-term profitable position. Due diligence reviews of the operations of CRM have been instigated.
Bell Gully, as part of the due diligence review, have indicated that there are no legal impediments to the purchase. Price Waterhouse’s due diligence and evaluation analysis support the proposition. The valuation of CRM is in line with both ACC’s and the Catalyst’s independent appraisals.
The ACC Board resolved that it:
• Agree to Catalyst purchasing CRM up to a maximum of $.
• Agree that Catalyst purchase 45% of ‘All Care Services’ and pay up to a maximum of $ for the proportion of the business.
• Direct ACC to brief the Minister for ACC following the completion of the agreement with CRM and prior to it being announced publicly. [Section 9(2)(B)][/quote]


Fron Feb 2003

[quote]4.6 Catalyst
The Chief Executive briefed the Board on Catalyst performance issues and some of the reasons behind Catalyst failing to achieve its performance targets. It was agreed that this should be the subject of further discussion at the strategic planning meeting.[/quote]

March 2003

[quote]3.6 Catalyst
It was confirmed that Catalyst performance issues will be discussed at the Catalyst Board meeting to be held later in the day.[/quote]

April 2003

[quote]5.5 Improving Catalyst’s Performance
The Chief Executive gave a brief presentation on the ways that had been identified to improve Catalyst’s performance, following discussions on this subject with the Chairman of Catalyst.[/quote]

July 2003

[quote]25.1 Catalyst
Mr Ractliffe reported that there was a special Catalyst Board Meeting to be held on Monday, 21 July to discuss Catalyst’s role in the current environment. The outcome of this meeting will be reported back to the ACC Board.[/quote]

August 2003

[quote]18 Catalyst’s Role
The Chief Executive tabled a paper developed following the Catalyst Board meeting on Wednesday, 20 August 2003. The ACC Board members considered and discussed the paper and resolved the following:
• That the Contract that ACC has had with Catalyst for the management of up to 3000 long-term claimants be terminated at a time to suit ACC noting that:
�� The making of significant inroads into ACC’s pool of long-term claimants by completing their rehabilitation has been significantly contributed to by Catalyst
�� The transfer of files from ACC to a third party is disruptive of normal case management
�� The contracts ACC had with external third parties for similar case management work were terminated some 12 – 18 months ago and the termination of the Catalyst contract was anticipated, around this time
�� The case management of the residual pool of long-term claimants is a normal business of ACC (the branch network manage 11,000 of the 14,000 tail claims)
�� The separation of case management into two streams (ACC branch and Catalyst) is dysfunctional and no longer warranted
�� The timing of the change will be progressive, to suit both parties
• That the commercial elements of Catalyst operations should be retained as a separate entity, noting that in the interim period they may require some support from ACC to ensure viability. This support may be necessary in the form of expert assistance, systems support and the availability of seconded case managers. Catalyst will need its own sales, accounting and case management expertise.
• To note that ACC’s processes for the management of long-term claimants are changing to reflect the emerging more complex characteristics of the remaining claimants and new models and treatment and diagnosis will be piloted.
• To note that the change process, to bring the case management of longer-term claimants back under the direct control of ACC will be managed on a progressive basis which will seek to minimise the disruption of individual claimants and case managers. While some changes can be implemented immediately, the bulk will take place over an estimated three-month period. A change manager will be appointed, working directly to the Chief Executive Officer to oversee the necessary changes. Where possible Case Managers will retain their existing group of claimants.
• To note that a careful communication process will be implemented to ensure that the change is as free from disruption as possible.
• To note that the Chairman will prepare a briefing note for the Minister to inform her of these changes.
• To note that the decision will be strictly embargoed until the staff involved has been informed of the changes.
• To note that Kevin Walker was asked to prepare a business case for the commercially focused Catalyst.[/quote]

September 2003

[quote]3.1 Catalyst
Mr Caygill reported that he had discussed the reorganisation of Catalyst with the Minister. The Minister acknowledged that this was an operational issue but confirmed she was comfortable with the transfer of long term claimants back into mainstream ACC.

5.4 Catalyst
The Chief Executive advised that the integration of Catalyst staff back into ‘mainstream’ ACC was going well. He also advised that ACC was establishing a new Catalyst branch in Palmerston North to work with the Catalyst long-term claimants.

13 Catalyst Commercial Operation
The Board acknowledged that this paper provided a ‘financial perspective’ to the operation of Catalyst in its new role. The Board recognised that there were broader strategic issues in relation to ACC supporting the continuation of a subsidiary company that was able to operate commercially. In particular there is an expectation that ACC, through the operation of Catalyst, provides support to the partnership programme.
The ACC Board noted that:
• A financial loss of $260K p.a. is forecast post-1 October on current levels of commercial revenue ($650K approx.).
• Catalyst cannot increase revenue to any significant extent without increasing costs (e.g. service delivery, staff and associated costs).
• Unless revenue is doubled to $$$$$ with minimal increase in costs other than direct service delivery, Catalyst will continue to trade at a loss.
• Ongoing annual revenue of at least $$$$$ is required for the business to survive. Section 9(2)(B)
• There are significant challenges to achieving the revenue increase and relative cost efficiencies necessary to result in the potential break-even position.
• Catalyst has contracted Mr Bruce Rogan to examine the viability of the commercial activities and the market opportunities. His report is due by the end of November.
• Catalyst infrastructure currently lacks the flexibility to manage a significant increase in business. The cost of developing appropriate systems is not known at this time.[/quote]

November 2003

[quote]21 Confirmation of membership of ACC Board Committees and Catalyst
The Board agreed that the Audit Committee should be complemented with a person who has a strong background in finance or accounting. The Board will consider appointing a person with such a background at the December Board meeting.
The Board resolved that it:
Agree to indemnify Mr Gregory Fortuin in respect of his directorship of the ACC Shamrock Superannuation Fund through ACC’s insurance policy.
Agree to indemnify Mr Anthony Ractliffe and Ms Linda Robertson as directors of Catalyst Injury Management Ltd through ACC’s insurance policy.
Agree to fees of $15,000 per annum for Mr Ractliffe and Ms Robertson for their directorship of Catalyst.
Agree to fees of $15,000 per annum for Messrs Janes and Duignan for their membership of the ACC Investment Committee.[/quote]

December 2003

[quote]12 Catalyst Restructure
The Chief Executive said that it is envisaged that Catalyst can establish itself in a dominant position in the third-party administrative market, either by organic growth (slow and less preferred) or by acquisition (faster and at the right price, the preferred option). Catalyst is currently unprofitable but it is envisaged that by 2006/07 it is expected that the Catalyst business will generate incomes and expenditure of $1.3 million – which is moving to a break-even position.
Key assumptions that are made in Catalyst being in a break-even position are:
• ACC's partnership plan will continue
• Catalyst will be free to develop profitable value-added business in addition to the normal range of TPA activities, i.e., move into the provision of specialist services to assist in hazard identification, and injury reduction as well as into other absence reduction programmes (e.g. reducing absences from sickness)
• the subsidiary will need to invest in a specialist case management system (or acquire one via the acquisition of a competing TPA). This could cost up to $200,000
• It is envisaged that while Catalyst can grow organically, it is probable that growth by acquisition will also be necessary if it is to achieve commercial viability and critical mass within an acceptable period of time.
Mr Fortuin concurred with these assumptions.
The financial position of Catalyst will be assessed at the end of this financial year before decisions are made to further develop the company.
It is not expected that the work of ACC’s rehabilitation and injury prevention interventions will cut across the work of Catalyst or vice versa as they are working in different markets.[/quote]

In my view the shareholders were there to rip off the ACC and wondered if the board knwe just who was the share holders when there was a large sum of money going into the Company.


Loos to me one company was buying another company and the same persons were the owners of both companies.
0

#5 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7530
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 25 October 2009 - 10:15 AM

Hi all


As said recently they are too closely connected to be anything other that companies belonging too and too closely associated to ACC than to be ACC!!

If you want to find out what entities have money going through them and what dont. You will have to get companies office records to begin with. Then you would have to see if they have truely been used for any number work $$$ Stashing or otherwise. The problem being of course is that you would have to have about 10 years spare and by them it would be old hat!!

Why dont you concentrate on the last two years of ACC figures as a couple of these companies figures are joined in with these, as I pointed out recently.

Stay focused on the here and now and what is going on with dollars. Rather that what was going on years and years ago.

Wasnt McGreevy on the board of ACC?? If I am correct, then it wouldnt be difficult for him to get new companies past the board, if they ever knew about it.

Seeing as Chapman could rip the system off, find out he did it by getting the actual case before the one put up on line here and see if the holes have been plugged within ACC.

Mind you these people very easily make a new hole of the owe to channel money thru.

Until the figures are analysed we are only summising!! You are on the right track but bring it up into the present to get the right figures for ACC end of year accounts. You will find eventually the Unions or Labour will do it, just to fling mud in Nicks face!!! Not a bad thing!!!

Mini
0

#6 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1700
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 11 November 2009 - 07:16 PM

Just a little bit of information I found.

The question is "who were the shareholders that got paid the $786,000.00 fro Catalyst. Nice little earner.

Now my reading of section 265 is that the Corporations subsidiary's have to run a a viable commercial proposition.

To be between 2002 and 2003 there is a $648,000.00 loss. there was still another loss in 2004

It seams to me that catalyst is a liability that should be removed.

Quote

265 Ancillary powers of Corporation
(1) The Corporation may provide services, in addition to services required to be provided under this Act, on a commercial basis, but only if—
(a) the service is provided by a Crown entity subsidiary of the Corporation; and
(B) the provision of the service is a viable commercial proposition for the Crown entity subsidiary; and
© the service being provided is one that is consistent with the role and functions of the Corporation under this Act; and
(d) any decision to provide the service, and the provision of the service, is consistent with any relevant policy direction given by the Minister under section 103 of the Crown Entities Act 2004.
(2) This section applies despite section 97(a) of the Crown Entities Act 2004.
Subsection (1)(a) and (B) were amended, as from 25 January 2005, by section
200 Crown Entities Act 2004 (2004 No 115) by inserting the words "Crown
entity" before the word "subsidiary".
Subsection (1)(d) was amended, as from 25 January 2005, by section 200 Crown
Entities Act 2004 (2004 No 115) by substituting the words "section 103 of the
Crown Entities Act 2004" for the expression "section 270".
Subsection (2) was inserted, as from 25 January 2005, by section 200 Crown
Entities Act 2004 (2004 No 115).
266 Provisions relating to Crown entity subsidiaries
(1) A Crown entity subsidiary formed by the Corporation must be wholly owned by the Corporation.
(2) The principal objective of a Crown entity subsidiary is to operate as a successful business and, to that extent, to be—
(a) as profitable and efficient as any comparable business not owned by the Crown; and
(B)
(3) A Crown entity subsidiary of the Corporation—
(a) is a Crown entity for the purposes of the Crown Entities Act 2004:
(B) is not a local authority for the purposes of section 73 of the Public Finance Act 1989:
© is not exempt from income tax.
(4) The returns generated by the activities of any Crown entity subsidiary must be applied by the Corporation on a basis determined in the statement of intent under section 272 or (in the
absence of such a determination) in a policy direction under section 103 of the Crown Entities Act 2004.
Compare: 1998 No 114 s 334(1)(4)
The heading to section 266 was amended, as from 25 January 2005, by section 200 Crown Entities Act 2004 (2004 No 115) by inserting the words "Crown entity" before the word "subsidiaries". Section 266 was amended, as from 25 January 2005, by section 200 Crown Entities Act 2004 (2004 No 115) by substituting the words "Crown entity subsidiary" for the words "subsidiary company" in every case where they appear. Subsection (2)(B) was repealed, as from 25 January 2005, by section 200 Crown Entities Act 2004 (2004 No 115).
Subsection (3) was substituted, as from 25 January 2005, by section 200 Crown Entities Act 2004 (2004 No 115).
Subsection (4) was amended, as from 25 January 2005, by section 200 Crown Entities Act 2004 (2004 No 115) by substituting the words "section 103 of the Crown Entities Act 2004" for the expression "section 270".

Attached File(s)


0

#7 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 12 November 2009 - 10:15 AM

Its a bloody joke. The only people who really know and understand the true position with ACC and its blatently fraudulent, incestuous business relationships are here. How much did Garry Wilson receive in financial returns from all of his dealings with ACC during his overextended tenure as CEO?
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users