16 Nov 2009
Woolworths' former bosses have put the boot into the company's administrators Deloitte.
Woolworths Group chairman Richard North and Steve Johnson claimed that Deloitte's role as both adviser to the company's banking syndicate and then as administrator, was a potential conflict of interest, reported the Daily Telegraph.
"I think it is unsatisfactory that advisers to banking groups on their options can then become administrators," said Johnson.
"The order of magnitude of fees is a factor of many times higher for an administration, compared to giving advice."
North believed that management plans to restructure the business would have saved jobs and stores.
Deloitte partner and joint administrator at Woolworths Neville Kahn vigorously defended the firm's work.
He said the company’s directors had approved Deloitte's practitioners' appointments to Woolworths, and fees had no bearing on their advice.
"The reason that Woolworths failed was because it was making substantial losses. Its working capital was impacted because of the withdrawal of credit insurance and it ran out of money. The directors were the ones who appointed administrators," said Kahn.
Further reading:
You may also like
Careers
Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles
Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you
Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you
Briefings
By looking at the reasons supplier statements became unfashionable, and the reasons why it is different today, this paper delves into the many benefits that can be obtained by automating the process.
Having a real and true view of your organisation’s current financial position, and having the right systems and processes in place, will ensure that you can make strong choices and are ready to capitalise on opportunities
Visitor comments Add your comment
Happens all the time
Regrettably this is common. Company is some difficulties, bank appoints one of the Big 4 firms to do a report. They do a cursory inspection, the company (not the bank) is charged a fortune for it, invariably they advise against continuing to lend as this is the safer option for them. Bank calls in o/d and liquidators appointed - guess who?
Posted by: Richard Barber, 16 Nov 2009 | 00:00
Professional's give professional advice
I used to work for one of the big firms in advising banks. The inspection was never cursory, it involved highly qualified staff with high charge out rates. It happened at short notice. The advice was aimed at the bank to recover the maximum of their debt. Sometimes this came from closure BUT sometimes this came from continued trading. If we just called for closure we would quickly lose our bank clients.
Posted by: George Bell, 17 Nov 2009 | 00:00
Guess who is the winner then?
In Uk, nobody benefits when a company is in administration, except the secured creditors which include the administrators. It is the most expensive country to "rescue" a company. In the end, they end up creaming off everything from the unsecured creditors. They drag on the administration as long as possible, citing "complexities" !! The big rip-off continues....
Posted by: paul, 11 Jan 2010 | 00:00