The Downfall of a New Zealand Industrialist: How Bank of New Zealand and Calibre Partners Dismantled Mark Clayton’s Claymark Industries
Mark Clayton, a prominent figure in New Zealand’s wood processing industry, founded Claymark Industries in 1988. Over three decades, he transformed the company into a leading global supplier of premium wood products, notably serving major clients like Home Depot in the United States. Claymark’s success was built on innovation, quality, and Clayton’s unwavering dedication.
A Legacy Built Over Decades
Claymark Industries, under Clayton’s leadership, became synonymous with excellence in wood processing. The company’s commitment to quality and its ability to adapt to market demands allowed it to expand its global footprint, making it a significant player in the international wood products market. Clayton’s vision and relentless drive were instrumental in this growth, earning him respect as a titan of New Zealand’s primary industries.
Financial Strains and the Bank’s Intervention
Despite its outward success, Claymark faced financial challenges in the late 2010s. The Bank of New Zealand (BNZ), as the principal financier, expressed concerns over the company’s financial health. In October 2018, BNZ informed Clayton that Claymark was in breach of its financial covenants. In response, Clayton initiated a tender process to sell the business, resulting in a conditional agreement in August 2019 to sell to NZ Future Forest Products (NZFFP) for $127 million. This sale was expected to cover all debts and leave a surplus of about $73 million.
However, the settlement with NZFFP was delayed multiple times and ultimately did not occur. On December 4, 2019, BNZ appointed receivers from Calibre Partners—Brendon Gibson, Grant Graham, and Neale Jackson—to oversee Claymark’s operations. At that time, Claymark owed approximately $54 million to BNZ.
Receivership and Allegations of Preordained Outcomes
The appointment of Calibre Partners as receivers mirrored tactics seen in other high-profile cases, such as the Villa Maria receivership. Notably, Calibre Partners had been involved with Claymark prior to the receivership, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest and the predetermined nature of the company’s fate.
Following their appointment, the receivers continued to operate Claymark while seeking buyers for its assets. Clayton himself made offers to repurchase the business, including a $60 million bid in August 2020. However, the receivers had already entered into an agreement with the Pedersen Group for $59 million, which went unconditional on the same day as Clayton’s offer.
Clayton alleged that the receivers and BNZ undervalued Claymark’s assets and orchestrated a sale that favored certain buyers, effectively sidelining his attempts to regain control. He claimed that his properties were sold for less than market value, leading to significant financial loss.
Adding to the controversy, the bank and receivers placed no value on Claymark’s brand, mirroring similar issues in the Villa Maria case. This disregard for the intrinsic value of an established business brand highlights systemic flaws in the receivership process.
Family’s Fight for Justice
Despite the personal and financial toll of the receivership, the Clayton family has continued the fight. They have taken substantive proceedings against BNZ and Calibre Partners, alleging that the assets of the Clayton trusts and business were deliberately undersold.
This case is due to be heard in late 2025 in the Rotorua High Court. The family’s decision to pursue legal action demonstrates their determination to hold the bank and receivers accountable for the actions they believe led to the unjust dismantling of Claymark Industries.
Legal Battles and Systemic Challenges
Mark Clayton’s case underscores the immense challenges faced by individuals and families taking on financial institutions and receivers in New Zealand. The cost of litigation, the prolonged timelines, and the mental, emotional, and physical strain often deter others from pursuing justice. Yet the Claytons, like Sir George Fistonich, refuse to back down.
Their fight represents a broader call for reform in New Zealand’s financial and legal systems, particularly regarding the treatment of iconic businesses during financial distress.
The Human and Economic Impact
The receivership and subsequent sale of Claymark had profound implications for its employees, suppliers, and the broader community. The dismantling of a company that had been a cornerstone of the local economy led to economic uncertainty. Clayton’s personal and financial ruin, culminating in his bankruptcy in August 2023, underscored the devastating impact of the receivership process.
A Call for Scrutiny and Reform
The parallels between the experiences of Mark Clayton and Sir George Fistonich highlight systemic issues within New Zealand’s financial and legal frameworks. The involvement of entities like Calibre Partners in both pre-receivership and receivership roles raises concerns about conflicts of interest and the fairness of the processes employed.
Furthermore, the apparent disregard for the intrinsic value of established brands and the expedited sales to preferred buyers call for a critical examination of the practices of banks and receivers. There is a growing demand for transparency and accountability to ensure that the dismantling of iconic businesses does not become a recurring narrative in New Zealand’s industrial landscape.
Conclusion
Mark Clayton’s journey from building a successful enterprise to losing it through a contentious receivership reflects the vulnerabilities faced by business owners in the current financial system. The continued legal battles initiated by the Clayton family serve as a testament to their resilience and a broader call to action for systemic reform.
As supporters of New Zealand’s primary industries, there is a collective hope that the judicial system will address these concerns, hold financial institutions accountable, and safeguard the legacy of entrepreneurs like Mark Clayton. The hearing in late 2025 will be a pivotal moment, and the outcome may set a precedent for how banks and receivers are held to account in the future.
