It’s D Day today for Du Val, and its owners, Kenyon and Charlotte Clarke.
The 10 day initial Receivers report is due out today.
So far all we’ve seen is a slew of affected creditors, mainly smaller businesses who have been horrifically affected by what looks like gross mismanagement of the Du Val group. The unpaid invoices however appear to be huge, and growing by the day.
What happened to the social media glitz and glamor, all that billionaire flamboyance we became so used to from Kenyon Clarke?
The music, as they say, has stopped.
No more private jets, no more Ferraris with $20 notes spewing out the exhaust, no more life lectures on a daily basis giving us tips on how to build a $750m property empire just like Kenyon did!
Well our view is Kenyon Clarke, apart from the usual mental illness traits shown by these types, is clearly a man riddled with the “Reverse Midas” touch.
So the question on so many peoples lips is what could the Clarke’s be charged with, and who might charge them?
Could it be the FMA?
Could it be the SFO?
Could it be MBIE?
Today’s report by the interim Receivers will no doubt give us a clue.
We’ve been looking into the accounts filed at the Charities Register, and we are wondering how a company that appears so broke and insolvent was able to keep pumping cash into its own charitable trust.
We’ve written to Diocesan School for Girls and asked questions about the effect the receivership has on its students that the Du Val Foundation is alleged to be paying for.
It’s worth noting the Du Val Foundation appears to only have started this program in 2023. We think that’s interesting given the state of the company.
The reply of Jenny Spillane from the Board of Governors at Diocesan was “no comment”.
One TV interview that piqued our interest was a supplier to Du Val who had questioned them about retention money, how much they held, and to provide proof of funds.
Both Du Val and its lawyers ignored that request.
Will Du Val and its Directors be the first to be criminally charged by MBIE for this breach if the retention funds have been used for other purposes? Why would Du Val not simply just provide the proof?
Let’s see what the report says today.
