Considered
a commercial risk to the community, property developer Philip Christopher
Parker’s bankruptcy was extended three years by the High Court to February 2017
because of what the court said was his lack of judgement, business prudence and
integrity.
Central to the Insolvency Service’s
objection to Mr Parker being discharged from a 2011 bankruptcy was his
involvement in a failed Ukrainian farm development and his failure to candidly
disclose his financial position. The
Insolvency Service said Mr Parker should remain bankrupt for a further period to
prevent him leaving the country, to ensure some accountability for his actions
and to deter others from taking a cavalier attitude to commercial obligations
and their duties of disclosure on bankruptcy.
Mr Parker declared himself bankrupt in
February 2011. He told the Insolvency
Service his only assets were his personal effects and a bible, which he said he
owned jointly with his brother. He
admitted to debts exceeding ten million dollars.
Insolvency Service inquiries raised
concerns. It said Mr Parker was not
upfront about his commercial dealings.
He gave a personal guarantee of $311,700 at a time he was hopelessly
insolvent. There were a number of
unexplained and poorly documented transactions between Mr Parker and his
parents and between Mr Parker’s business interests and his parents. Mr Parker had failed to have his businesses
prepare proper financial statements. He
had failed to disclose a consultancy agreeement entered into six days prior to
bankruptcy in which he was to receive a monthly fee of $5000, later increased
to $6000. There was some evidence that
his wife, living in the Ukraine, was
benefitting from this agreement.
A failed Ukrainian business venture
raised the most concern. Evidence was
given that Mr Parker attempted in 2010 to raise US$30 million for a proposed
large scale dairy conversion in the Ukraine.
Projected returns of twenty per cent per annum were offered. Supposedly some 3500 hectares in southern
Ukraine were available for the conversion.
A Hong Kong company, Steppeland Agricultural Ltd, was the proposed
investment vehicle. There were no
precise figures as to how much was raised.
One estimate put the figure at two million dollars. Two investors who travelled to the Ukraine
found the company did not own the assets claimed. Further evidence was given that a second
investment vehicle was promoted just prior to Mr Parker’s bankruptcy to
supposedly manage the project. Mr Parker
obtained further funds from existing investors days before filing for his own
bankruptcy.
The Insolvency Service said Mr Parker was
uncommunicative, argumentative and evasive when asked for information. At the High Court hearing for an extension to
the bankruptcy, Associate Judge Doogue described Mr Parker as evasive and
belligerent.
Parker
v. Official Assignee – High Court (26.11.15)
16.012