The minority shareholders of Du Val Property Group (DVPG) have escalated their concerns following the release of a financial report and a formal statement of solvency, confirming that the company was solvent when the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) moved to place it into interim receivership and later statutory management. The newly surfaced documents—prepared by Du Val’s external accountant, Herbert Morton—raise serious questions about the necessity and validity of the government’s intervention.
In a statement dated 1 August 2024, Herbert Morton, the company’s accountant, confirmed that Du Val met both the liquidity and balance sheet tests as prescribed under the Companies Act 1993. The report assured that Du Val had sufficient liquidity to meet its obligations and stressed that no distribution had been made, meaning the company’s balance sheet remained stable. These findings align with an internal financial report dated 31 July 2024, which illustrated Du Val’s assets, liabilities, and liquidity position, showing a positive working capital balance of over $3 million .
Despite this, on 21 August 2024, the FMA recommended that the government place Du Val into statutory management, citing ongoing investigations and financial risks. This move followed interim receivership, which began on 2 August 2024. The actions taken by the FMA have come under intense scrutiny, especially after the release of Herbert Morton’s solvency report and accompanying financial documents that paint a very different picture of Du Val’s financial health than that implied by the receivership.
In a detailed report to the Minister, the minority shareholders expressed their frustration with the statutory management process and highlighted PwC’s failure to provide financial clarity or operational leadership since their appointment as statutory managers. The shareholders voiced their concerns that PwC lacks the qualifications to manage a solvent property development company like Du Val and questioned whether the statutory management was simply a pathway to winding up the business rather than saving it .
Adding to the shareholders’ concerns is the revelation that secured creditors, including the company’s primary lender Fiera, had full confidence in Du Val prior to the statutory management. Fiera issued a notice after the receivership, stating that the only way to remedy Du Val’s default was to terminate the receivership and allow the company to continue trading as it had previously done .
The shareholders have expressed deep dissatisfaction with PwC’s management, citing the statutory managers’ failure to finalize sales agreements for key properties under construction. These delays have significantly harmed the company’s ability to repay its secured creditors, exacerbating a situation that, according to the shareholders, could have been avoided had statutory management not been imposed .
As the minority shareholders rally behind the findings of the solvency report, they are calling for an immediate termination of PwC’s statutory management appointment and a reinstatement of the company’s original leadership. They argue that Du Val, as a solvent business, does not meet the criteria for statutory management and should be allowed to continue its operations, especially given the forecasted completion of several major projects which would generate substantial returns and repay all secured creditors.
With $400 million in business value at stake, the shareholders are now demanding that the government and the FMA provide full transparency about their decision to impose statutory management, which they believe has only served to destroy value for both creditors and investors. They are also preparing for potential legal action to protect their investments and challenge the basis for the statutory management .
This revelation marks a turning point for Du Val Property Group’s future, as its minority shareholders intensify their efforts to reverse the statutory management decision and recover the value lost since the government’s intervention. With key financial reports backing their claims, the pressure is mounting on the government and PwC to provide a clear and defensible rationale for their actions.
