The Claymark Acquisition:
Overview of the Acquisition
The acquisition of Claymark has added another layer of complexity to the financial dealings of Wade Glass and Paul Southam. This acquisition, valued at $59 million, involved the sale of business and trust properties, which were then resold on the same day for a profit. This maneuver, facilitated by new high leases to KF Woftam, highlights a controversial sale and leaseback technique that allegedly allowed Glass to avoid putting any money down in the process. This approach has raised significant questions about the ethical and financial practices employed by Glass in his acquisitions.
Initial Collaboration and Subsequent Betrayal
Initially, Wade Glass reportedly worked alongside Claymark founder Mark Clayton with the intention of helping Clayton regain control of his business from receivership. Over several months, they collaborated under a confidentiality agreement. However, Clayton alleges that Glass abandoned this partnership and aligned with Paul Pedersen and Christopher Reeves to finalize the deal, leaving Clayton excluded.
This shift in strategy has resulted in ongoing legal battles, with the Clayton family pursuing action against the receivers, Calibre Partners, and the Bank of New Zealand. They claim that Clayton’s trust properties were undersold, and that the back-to-back sales that occurred on the day of settlement were part of a scheme designed, in their view, to financially undermine them. These allegations have added further controversy to the dealings of Glass and Southam, suggesting that the acquisition was not just about financial gain but also involved negatively affecting Clayton’s financial interests.
Rapid Transition to Finance Director
In a surprising twist, Wade Glass quickly transitioned from his role as an Ecovis accountant, initially consulted for advisory support on the deal, to becoming the Finance Director and a shareholder of Claymark. The rapid nature of this transition has drawn scrutiny, raising questions about Glass’s true role and intentions during the acquisition. His new position in the company suggests that his involvement may have extended beyond financial advising, with some questioning whether his strategic maneuvering was part of a broader plan to take control of Claymark.
K F Woftam’s Involvement and Financial Implications
K F Woftam (Reeves) became a shareholder in Claymark after acquiring the properties at inflated prices, thanks to the hiked lease agreements. While this arrangement benefited Pedersen and Glass/Southam, it raised questions about the sustainability of such a financial structure and whether it created imbalances in how the profits were distributed among the shareholders. The financial implications of this sale and leaseback strategy not only contributed to the success of some parties but also added layers of complexity to an already controversial acquisition.
Mark Clayton’s Bankruptcy and Allegations
In August 2023, Mark Clayton was adjudicated bankrupt, adding yet another dimension to the fallout from the acquisition. According to Clayton, the Bank of New Zealand and Calibre Partners acted in a way that he believes was intended to ensure he could not mount a legal challenge. He claims this reflects a broader pattern in New Zealand, where receivers and banks allegedly use their financial power to exhaust the resources of parties looking to challenge them. Clayton has expressed feelings of betrayal toward Wade Glass, who he originally believed was helping him regain control of Claymark, only to later realize that Glass had, in Clayton’s view, used the opportunity to gather information and align with Paul Pedersen to acquire the business.
Underselling and Financial Ruin
Clayton’s property portfolio, accumulated over many years and held in trusts, included valuable assets that were not essential to Claymark’s core operations. According to Clayton, these properties were sold at a fraction of their value, a move that he believes has left him and his family in financial difficulty. Clayton and his family are now seeking answers and justice, asserting that the receivers and the Bank of New Zealand deliberately undersold key properties as part of a broader strategy, in Clayton’s view, to push them into financial hardship.
The Claymark acquisition, once a beacon of hope for the Clayton family, has now become a source of frustration and financial devastation. What was meant to be a collaborative effort to bring the company back from the brink of receivership turned into a hostile takeover, leaving the original founders out of the loop and in severe financial straits.
Conclusion
The Claymark acquisition exemplifies the complexities and ethical dilemmas that often surround modern business acquisitions. The use of sale and leaseback techniques, strategic alliances, and aggressive financial maneuvers has not only reshaped the landscape of Claymark but also exposed the vulnerability of founders in the face of powerful financial entities. The ongoing legal battles and the personal bankruptcy of Mark Clayton emphasize the high stakes and the very real human cost of these corporate strategies.
This case raises broader questions about the responsibilities of financial institutions, receivers, and business partners in ensuring that deals are conducted transparently and fairly. While financial success may be achieved through creative strategies, the Claymark acquisition serves as a reminder that the personal and ethical costs can be significant, leaving behind a trail of legal disputes and financial challenges.
