In the world of liquidations and receiverships, it’s not just businesses that collapse—people’s lives crumble with them. Behind the cold, impersonal numbers splashed across media headlines lie individuals and families who have spent decades building something meaningful. The real tragedy often goes unnoticed: the human cost. As receivers and liquidators take the reins, often with the full support of financial institutions, there is little consideration for the sacrifices and personal toll on the business owners, employees, and minority shareholders.
Winston Peters, in his first speech back in Parliament, reminded us of the deep-rooted lack of integrity in the media. We have become a society that just accepts what is printed, failing to question whether it is factual. This passive acceptance can cause real damage to people and businesses, tarnishing reputations and destroying years of work, often without justification or a thorough examination of the facts.
Time and again, we see headlines alluding to serious events or implying wrongdoing by a person or business, often before they have even faced due process in the courts. These articles are written based on the opinion of the writer or the aggrieved party, encouraging the public to draw conclusions that may not be rooted in fact. The presumption of innocence is overshadowed by salacious headlines that can lead readers to believe that the accused party has already been judged guilty.
This has been witnessed on multiple occasions over the past few years. A bank or financial institution decides to send in the receivers to a business they believe is in breach of their relationship. Without hesitation, the receiver will collaborate with a friendly journalist, publishing an article that seems to validate the bank’s decision. The piece lays the blame entirely at the feet of the business owner, portraying them as a failure, while ignoring the fact that their entire life’s work has just been upended.
Villainizing the Business Owners: A Convenient Narrative
One of the most destructive tactics employed by receivers and liquidators is their effort to villainize the failed business owners. This is often done to create a convenient narrative that justifies the aggressive actions taken against these individuals. The business owners, many of whom have spent decades building their companies, are suddenly cast as negligent, reckless, or even deceitful—painting a picture of mismanagement that often lacks a factual basis.
This villainization is not just a by-product of media spin, but often part of a calculated strategy. Once the receivership or liquidation process is set in motion, the focus shifts away from the business’s operational challenges or external factors that contributed to its financial struggles. Instead, the business owner is framed as the sole culprit, responsible for the downfall. Their past achievements are ignored, and their years of dedication are reduced to nothing more than a supposed sequence of failures.
Articles begin to surface with accusations of breaches of directors’ duties, incompetence, or even misappropriation of funds. These insinuations are rarely backed by solid evidence at this stage but are powerful enough to sway public opinion. The media’s portrayal of these individuals as “failed entrepreneurs” or “irresponsible directors” plays right into the hands of the receivers, who seek to minimize any sympathy for the owners.
It becomes much easier for the receivers and liquidators to execute their duties when the business owner has already been demonized in the public eye. After all, who will rally behind someone perceived as having squandered millions of dollars or run a company into the ground? The media, often fed by the narrative spun by receivers, publishes exaggerated claims of debts—$220 million, $300 million—without any context to explain how those figures came to be. This lack of nuance turns business owners into public pariahs, guilty in the court of public opinion before they’ve had a chance to defend themselves.
The villainization serves multiple purposes for receivers and liquidators. Firstly, it discredits the business owner, making any attempt to challenge the process seem like a desperate move by someone trying to escape accountability. Secondly, it shifts the focus away from the failings of the financial institutions, which are often complicit in the company’s downfall, whether through poor lending practices, the imposition of unrealistic covenants, or simply failing to support the business during difficult times. Lastly, by turning the business owner into the villain, it makes it easier for the receiver or liquidator to strip assets, dismiss employees, and dismantle the company with little public backlash.
Whoever said the truth sells a story? What really sells are sensational headlines that suggest incompetence, breaches of directors’ duties, and inflated figures of how much a business supposedly owes. For example, a headline might read, “Business Owes $220 Million!”—which is enough to make the average reader, struggling to secure a mortgage or personal loan, feel unsympathetic. The story is framed to remove any support or sympathy for the party in receivership or liquidation.
But these tactics, used by the media for years, obscure the truth. The figures quoted never explain how the business’s operations were structured or the true cash flow situation. While today a business might be $50,000 in overdraft, by next week, they could have $250,000 in the bank. These details are conveniently omitted to create a more scandalous narrative, leaving the public with a distorted view.
The obvious question that arises for those who wish to question the media’s narrative is this: if the bank believed in the client’s ability to perform, why did they lend them money in the first place? Banks require extensive regular reporting for commercial clients, which should prevent any major surprises. So was someone not paying attention? Or could it be that the parties within the bank were motivated by bonuses tied to lending, even if the long-term health of the business was in question?
Finally, do we really believe that banks, receivers, and liquidators are infallible? It’s an uncomfortable question, but one that must be asked. We are often led to believe that these institutions are beyond reproach, when in reality, they may be using the borrower’s own money to crush them through extended legal battles. This system can leave the victims financially and emotionally devastated, without ever questioning whether the process was truly just.
Our media, allowing the unchecked influence of banks, receivers, and liquidators to freely shape the narrative, does not acknowledge the real pain these processes cause. These are the silent victims: the business owners who have invested their entire lives, only to be labeled as failures. Their staff and suppliers, left without payment, and their families, left with the stigma of failure, all bear the burden. In most cases, 99% of these people never recover and fade into obscurity, carrying the emotional weight of their “failure” for the rest of their lives.
However, there are those few—just 1%—who refuse to succumb to the onslaught. They fight back, digging deep into their resilience. But even for these fighters, the battle is not fair. The banks and receivers hold the power, dragging out the process to exhaust the resources of those who resist. In the end, the money that should be helping the business is being used to fuel the very fight against them.
So where is the balance? Why does the media fail to delve into the real facts and figures? If journalism were truly impartial, stories would be balanced, and the David vs. Goliath battle wouldn’t always favor Goliath. But large corporations and financial institutions buy time, space, and, in some cases, opinion.
I admire those who refuse to stay down—those who rise again and push forward despite the shadow cast over their achievements. It is time for the media to print factual, balanced content, speaking to all parties involved, and ensuring that sensational headlines do not further victimize those already suffering.
By encouraging thoughtful and transparent reporting, we can stop perpetuating the cycle of injustice and give voice to the silent victims who deserve far more than a passing, scandalous headline.
