Dick Smith in store decline

Forums › Off topic › Dick Smith in store decline

1 | ... | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | ... | 94

3835 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1464801 7-Jan-2016 01:06

tdgeek: Whats the legality of deciding not to honour the cards? If I walked into the store and told the staff that I am taking this printer and not paying for it, what would happen? If I gave them cash so as to have the gift card holder get the printer next week, then thats ok to say no, sorry?

Even worse for deposits on a lay-by.

Now, if they were insolvent, thats ok, but they aren't as NZ is trading and earning a profit.

So being under administration means the company is simply being looked after by a qualified manager.
It's tbe same legal entity... Dse limited or whatever.

So I was thinking if you walked in and took a printer then offered the voucher and walked out, its not stealing. They cant call the police because you technically paid for it and its not a criminal issue, but a civil one, meaning dse needs to take you to court which they wouldnt do over a $100 printer. Police cant do anything in that situation.

Ray Taylor

There is no place like localhost

Spreadsheet for Comparing Electricity Plans Here

Mighty Ape

Shop Mighty Ape for electronics, games, computers books and more (affiliate link).

mattwnz

19389 posts

Uber Geek

#1464803 7-Jan-2016 01:14

raytaylor:

So I was thinking if you walked in and took a printer then offered the voucher and walked out, its not stealing. They cant call the police because you technically paid for it and its not a criminal issue, but a civil one, meaning dse needs to take you to court which they wouldnt do over a $100 printer. Police cant do anything in that situation.

I think the police would see it differently. I wouldn't advise anyone doing that. That said, I think it shows laws around vouchers need some urgent updating, including requiring stores use trust accounts for voucher, which they can't access.

mattwnz

19389 posts

Uber Geek

#1464804 7-Jan-2016 01:23

Detruire:
tdgeek:
Hammerer:
MikeB4: NZ DSE is a 100% subsidiary of the Australian parent group, therefore their financial position is that of the parent. If DSE Australia is technically insolvent then so is DSE NZ.
I'd be very surprised if you are correct. It is normal for subsidiaries to be separate legal entities as DSE (NZ) Limited appears to be (Company registration number: 37602). So it does not automatically inherit the status of the parent company unless the courts conclude that it is being run as a division without the capability to operate independently.

But it is, as per the DSE NZ website, stating the position as in receivership.

The NZ website copyright notice says "Dick Smith Electronics Pty Limited". I believe the AU and NZ sites have the same backend.

Shouldn't it be DSE (NZ) LIMITED (37602) Voluntary Administration, as per the NZ companies website.? I wonder why their NZ website has had it's name changed to the Australian company name instead, as people would have previously purchased their goods in NZ from DSE (NZ) LIMITED, not from Dick Smith Electronics Pty Limited. ALthough I beleive their website is all run offshore, so it may just be an error, and they just updated the NZ and Oz website with the same footer.

I wonder what happens with thing like goods which have been sent in for repairs, and bonds people have to pay the store before the store will send them off. Will people get their repaired goods and their bond back? In the past I have heard stories of companies going under and closing, and people losing the goods they had taken in for repair. I would be worried if I had sent goods in to be repaired, eg. an iphone. If I was in that situation I would be checking with the receivers / administrators about it.

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
7277 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1464805 7-Jan-2016 02:57

tdgeek:
Hammerer:
MikeB4: NZ DSE is a 100% subsidiary of the Australian parent group, therefore their financial position is that of the parent. If DSE Australia is technically insolvent then so is DSE NZ.
I'd be very surprised if you are correct. It is normal for subsidiaries to be separate legal entities as DSE (NZ) Limited appears to be (Company registration number: 37602). So it does not automatically inherit the status of the parent company unless the courts conclude that it is being run as a division without the capability to operate independently.

But it is, as per the DSE NZ website, stating the position as in receivership.

MikeB4 is correct. DSENZ is a separate legal entity from other companies in the group - but it will be a 'charging subsidiary' under the banks' lending and security documentation.

A standard cross-default clause in the docs will mean that if any one company in the group is in default with the banks (i.e. not meeting the agreed financial ratios etc) - then all companies in the group are deemed to be in default. That gives the banks the right to call in receivers to all companies in the group. Being a separate legal entity doesn't provide any isolation or protection from the banks' rights or actions.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
7277 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1464806 7-Jan-2016 03:26

Geektastic:
gzt:
tdgeek:
gzt: It appears to me the law needs to be updated to further protect consumers in this scenario as secured creditors. The consumers were not intending to take on risk in return for a gain, they were just making a purchase.

Agree, good plan, but thats too hard. Your cash goes into the bucket, used to pay wages, power, rents, stock, profit. Its cashflow. Can't realistically earmark funds like that or put them into a trust account. You could argue that the power company might want to be a secured creditor as well. That would cause cashflow to be an issue in a successful business

No, but they can be closer to the front of the queue somewhere behind staff wages which are first in queue.

Richms suggestion of requiring an escrow is also valid.

The suppliers of any business eg the power company example and goods suppliers are taking a calculated business risk for gain. The consumer is in a different position.

I bet banks are first in the queue before anyone. Then Lawyers and the receivers. Then maybe someone else...

Banks will not be first.

The priority creditors - who will be paid before the banks - include the Receiver's fees and costs, unpaid PAYE and GST to go to the IRD, council rates, employees' holiday pay and a portion of unpaid wages. Then any secured creditors (those holding mortgages over property or debentures over the companies' assets) will be next. Then unsecured creditors, then shareholders if there's anything left.

It appears that the banks are secured creditors - NAB/BNZ and HSBC provided a new syndicated facility that was only put in place in June 2015 - repaying former lender Westpac. Westpac must be laughing (all the way to the bank!) at their narrow escape. The new banks' bosses must be looking sideways at the corporate relationship bankers who put the new facility in place so recently.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1464819 7-Jan-2016 07:50

eracode:
tdgeek:
Hammerer:
MikeB4: NZ DSE is a 100% subsidiary of the Australian parent group, therefore their financial position is that of the parent. If DSE Australia is technically insolvent then so is DSE NZ.
I'd be very surprised if you are correct. It is normal for subsidiaries to be separate legal entities as DSE (NZ) Limited appears to be (Company registration number: 37602). So it does not automatically inherit the status of the parent company unless the courts conclude that it is being run as a division without the capability to operate independently.

But it is, as per the DSE NZ website, stating the position as in receivership.

MikeB4 is correct. DSENZ is a separate legal entity from other companies in the group - but it will be a 'charging subsidiary' under the banks' lending and security documentation.

A standard cross-default clause in the docs will mean that if any one company in the group is in default with the banks (i.e. not meeting the agreed financial ratios etc) - then all companies in the group are deemed to be in default. That gives the banks the right to call in receivers to all companies in the group. Being a separate legal entity doesn't provide any isolation or protection from the banks' rights or actions.

Do you know that or assume that? If thats the case DSE NZ is not under any receivership issues, but they are. The group is being managed by the reciovers, they notated the NZ website of this, and they are allowing NZ to trade as it makes money, and gift cards are stopped, as they are unsecured creditors and cannopt legally be paid out/used at the moment. If it was a seperate legal enitity it is just that, as seperate as you and I are, but they are not. They are part of a fgroup and that group is in recievership

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1464822 7-Jan-2016 07:58

eracode:
Geektastic:
gzt:
tdgeek:
gzt: It appears to me the law needs to be updated to further protect consumers in this scenario as secured creditors. The consumers were not intending to take on risk in return for a gain, they were just making a purchase.

Agree, good plan, but thats too hard. Your cash goes into the bucket, used to pay wages, power, rents, stock, profit. Its cashflow. Can't realistically earmark funds like that or put them into a trust account. You could argue that the power company might want to be a secured creditor as well. That would cause cashflow to be an issue in a successful business

No, but they can be closer to the front of the queue somewhere behind staff wages which are first in queue.

Richms suggestion of requiring an escrow is also valid.

The suppliers of any business eg the power company example and goods suppliers are taking a calculated business risk for gain. The consumer is in a different position.

I bet banks are first in the queue before anyone. Then Lawyers and the receivers. Then maybe someone else...

Banks will not be first.

The priority creditors - who will be paid before the banks - include the Receiver's fees and costs, unpaid PAYE and GST to go to the IRD, council rates, employees' holiday pay and a portion of unpaid wages. Then any secured creditors (those holding mortgages over property or debentures over the companies' assets) will be next. Then unsecured creditors, then shareholders if there's anything left.

It appears that the banks are secured creditors - NAB/BNZ and HSBC provided a new syndicated facility that was only put in place in June 2015 - repaying former lender Westpac. Westpac must be laughing (all the way to the bank!) at their narrow escape. The new banks' bosses must be looking sideways at the corporate relationship bankers who put the new facility in place so recently.

?? Off course they are, they appointed recievers to secure their assets as deemed under the security blanket they advanced funds to DSE with. The receivers are not there to deal with anyone else except the banks security being recovered. Some security blankets could be "these" assets, so only those assets can be recovered, any losses after that are unsecured. In this case I'd suggest that the security is more wide ranging, so the other assets cannot be touched, apart from what the receivers allow. Once the receivers have satisfied the recovery to the secured creditors that hired them, they will exit. Then the next step could be administration, to get the most out of whats left, which will be I would think, sale of the business as a going concern. If thats not going to happen, liquidators will sell everything. Whichever of these offers the highest cash return

MikeB4

18133 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1464824 7-Jan-2016 08:00

tdgeek:
eracode:
tdgeek:
Hammerer:
MikeB4: NZ DSE is a 100% subsidiary of the Australian parent group, therefore their financial position is that of the parent. If DSE Australia is technically insolvent then so is DSE NZ.
I'd be very surprised if you are correct. It is normal for subsidiaries to be separate legal entities as DSE (NZ) Limited appears to be (Company registration number: 37602). So it does not automatically inherit the status of the parent company unless the courts conclude that it is being run as a division without the capability to operate independently.

But it is, as per the DSE NZ website, stating the position as in receivership.

MikeB4 is correct. DSENZ is a separate legal entity from other companies in the group - but it will be a 'charging subsidiary' under the banks' lending and security documentation.

A standard cross-default clause in the docs will mean that if any one company in the group is in default with the banks (i.e. not meeting the agreed financial ratios etc) - then all companies in the group are deemed to be in default. That gives the banks the right to call in receivers to all companies in the group. Being a separate legal entity doesn't provide any isolation or protection from the banks' rights or actions.

Do you know that or assume that? If thats the case DSE NZ is not under any receivership issues, but they are. The group is being managed by the reciovers, they notated the NZ website of this, and they are allowing NZ to trade as it makes money, and gift cards are stopped, as they are unsecured creditors and cannopt legally be paid out/used at the moment. If it was a seperate legal enitity it is just that, as seperate as you and I are, but they are not. They are part of a fgroup and that group is in recievership

DSE NZ is in receivership that is a fact. Companies under receivership often continue to trade and some trade their way out of administration. It is possible that winding up writs are filled by a secured creditor to protect their funds and the company ceases trading. The receivers may well decide this week, next week or next month that their is no advantage to the creditors to continue trading and cease trading.

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1464827 7-Jan-2016 08:06

MikeB4:
tdgeek:
eracode:
tdgeek:
Hammerer:
MikeB4: NZ DSE is a 100% subsidiary of the Australian parent group, therefore their financial position is that of the parent. If DSE Australia is technically insolvent then so is DSE NZ.
I'd be very surprised if you are correct. It is normal for subsidiaries to be separate legal entities as DSE (NZ) Limited appears to be (Company registration number: 37602). So it does not automatically inherit the status of the parent company unless the courts conclude that it is being run as a division without the capability to operate independently.

But it is, as per the DSE NZ website, stating the position as in receivership.

MikeB4 is correct. DSENZ is a separate legal entity from other companies in the group - but it will be a 'charging subsidiary' under the banks' lending and security documentation.

A standard cross-default clause in the docs will mean that if any one company in the group is in default with the banks (i.e. not meeting the agreed financial ratios etc) - then all companies in the group are deemed to be in default. That gives the banks the right to call in receivers to all companies in the group. Being a separate legal entity doesn't provide any isolation or protection from the banks' rights or actions.

Do you know that or assume that? If thats the case DSE NZ is not under any receivership issues, but they are. The group is being managed by the reciovers, they notated the NZ website of this, and they are allowing NZ to trade as it makes money, and gift cards are stopped, as they are unsecured creditors and cannopt legally be paid out/used at the moment. If it was a seperate legal enitity it is just that, as seperate as you and I are, but they are not. They are part of a fgroup and that group is in recievership

DSE NZ is in receivership that is a fact. Companies under receivership often continue to trade and some trade their way out of administration. It is possible that winding up writs are filled by a secured creditor to protect their funds and the company ceases trading. The receivers may well decide this week, next week or next month that their is no advantage to the creditors to continue trading and cease trading.

Exactly. Right now NZ makes money so thats good. OZ, I'd say not, but until they can seek a sale as a going concern, its as BAU as can be allowed under the fact that assets are now locked into preferential, secured and unsecured. I'd say they are trying to sell the DSE whole business, if that doesnt happen, then sell NZ as a going concern and asset strip the rest. While the banks have had enough, right now they can choose to fund some cashflow if at the end of the day the sale of the whole business can happen. I agree that what they choose to do will be in days or weeks. They are bound to be having active discussions right now with potential buyers

MikeB4

18133 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1464841 7-Jan-2016 08:35

My personal view is the receivers will struggle to sell the Group, they may be able to sell parts such as DSE New Zealand but I doubt that will happen.

I also feel there will be more of these collapses in this sector due to unsustainable pricing expectations by customers and competition pressure from off shore sellers.

sir1963

2275 posts

Uber Geek

#1464842 7-Jan-2016 08:38

raytaylor:
tdgeek: Whats the legality of deciding not to honour the cards? If I walked into the store and told the staff that I am taking this printer and not paying for it, what would happen? If I gave them cash so as to have the gift card holder get the printer next week, then thats ok to say no, sorry?

Even worse for deposits on a lay-by.

Now, if they were insolvent, thats ok, but they aren't as NZ is trading and earning a profit.

So being under administration means the company is simply being looked after by a qualified manager.
It's tbe same legal entity... Dse limited or whatever.

So I was thinking if you walked in and took a printer then offered the voucher and walked out, its not stealing. They cant call the police because you technically paid for it and its not a criminal issue, but a civil one, meaning dse needs to take you to court which they wouldnt do over a $100 printer. Police cant do anything in that situation.

DSE just needs to make a police complaint, they don't need to take you to court.
They also don't have to accept foreign currency as payment.
The Police would take the view it is theft and allow the courts to decide.
So if you think that a $100 printer is worth the criminal conviction, fine, and lawyers fees.........

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1464868 7-Jan-2016 09:00

MikeB4: My personal view is the receivers will struggle to sell the Group, they may be able to sell parts such as DSE New Zealand but I doubt that will happen.

I also feel there will be more of these collapses in this sector due to unsustainable pricing expectations by customers and competition pressure from off shore sellers.

Hard to say. On one hand we have the big boys, NH, Noels, etc. Then there is the Jaycar at the other end. DSE needs to reinvent itself, be a bit of a smaller big boy, and a Jaycar to a degree to offer some differentiation. I think they can and should keep the DSE name, its not attracting the same reaction as we are on here. It will be a bargaion for someone who can show a bit of vision. But like other industries, they can be a race to the bottom.

sir1963

2275 posts

Uber Geek

#1464881 7-Jan-2016 09:16

tdgeek:
MikeB4: My personal view is the receivers will struggle to sell the Group, they may be able to sell parts such as DSE New Zealand but I doubt that will happen.

I also feel there will be more of these collapses in this sector due to unsustainable pricing expectations by customers and competition pressure from off shore sellers.

Hard to say. On one hand we have the big boys, NH, Noels, etc. Then there is the Jaycar at the other end. DSE needs to reinvent itself, be a bit of a smaller big boy, and a Jaycar to a degree to offer some differentiation. I think they can and should keep the DSE name, its not attracting the same reaction as we are on here. It will be a bargaion for someone who can show a bit of vision. But like other industries, they can be a race to the bottom.

No one who is big enough to buy it would be interested.

$1.3 Million profit on a turn over of $179 Million is damned near a rounding error.

They are no Jaycar competitor, and industry has shifted to RS/Element 14

They are no Noels/HN/100%/SmithCity etc , they dont have the space, the stock levels or the variety. It would take a massive injection of capital to try (and probably fail). Its not just the stores, its the back end warehousing that would need upgrading too.
And there is certainly no incentive for any of these players to buy it, especially when the worlds economy is slowing again. And I am not so sure that in this race to the bottom that any of these companies is in a position to take on that level of risk. Having DSE die is a cheaper/safer option for the existing players.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29049 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1464885 7-Jan-2016 09:20

I can foretell one thing. Whoever buys DSE will be the next one to go down.

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek

#1464897 7-Jan-2016 09:32

tdgeek:
MikeB4: My personal view is the receivers will struggle to sell the Group, they may be able to sell parts such as DSE New Zealand but I doubt that will happen.

I also feel there will be more of these collapses in this sector due to unsustainable pricing expectations by customers and competition pressure from off shore sellers.

Hard to say. On one hand we have the big boys, NH, Noels, etc. Then there is the Jaycar at the other end. DSE needs to reinvent itself, be a bit of a smaller big boy, and a Jaycar to a degree to offer some differentiation. I think they can and should keep the DSE name, its not attracting the same reaction as we are on here. It will be a bargaion for someone who can show a bit of vision. But like other industries, they can be a race to the bottom.

DSE, over time, repositioned themselves to be a Noel Leeming look-a-like, without whiteware. Probably using their percieved Brand value to offer 'technology' solutions to the mass market, and it tried to keep a foot in smaller centres where there wasn't much competetion. DSE hasn't really competed with Jaycar for years.
Harvey Norman, with it's broader product range, appeals to home owning city folk, and only competes with NL really only when it comes to things that use electricity.
Smiths City is perhaps more of a HN competitor, though its more small town and folksy focused, and looks like a garage sale. Which, like The Warehouse, gives it a very Kiwi flavour.

Repositioning the brand in a space when you've been competing, in part, writh HN, NL, Smiths, (and the likes of PB-Tech) for Technology; and Wharehouse, Briscoes, Farmers, and all the above for small appliances is probably too broad a stretch. If there is value in the brand it's probably in being more niche, keeping stores in the regions, and staying out of house brands.

1 | ... | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | ... | 94