Two of Australia’s biggest legal practices Clayton Utz and Phillips Fox have been engaged by interested parties in the UK who claim that they are owed millions by Leisuretech and Andrew Goldfinch following a decision by Goldfinch to place the original Leisuretech Company into administration with debts of $1.6 million following his loss of a UK High Court appeal for an A Bus patent.
In placing Leisuretech into voluntary administration it now appears that Goldfinch and his fellow directors Andrew Goldfinch, Mr Jonathan Ritchie and Mrs Elisabeth Goldfinch used an independent Company to value the assets of Leisuretech before they were asset stripped into a new company. It also appears that there are only two UK creditors both who are owed over $1.5M and both organisations linked to Goldfinch’s failed bid to own the A Bus patents in Europe.
Now questions are being raised about an independent valuation done by Newcastle based accountants and professional services Company Lawler and Partners and whether it reflected the true value of the A Bus patent, the value of the Leisuretech name as well as the goodwill and stock associated with the original Leisuretech Company that has now been placed into administration.
Also investigating the affairs of Leisuretech is Sydney based administrator Brian Allen of Burton Glenn and Allen.
Brian Allen the partner responsible for the Leisuretech investigation has admitted that he has already been visited by legal representatives from Clayton Utz and Phillips Fox who represents UK based Company Armour to whom Leisuretech lost their High Court appeal and UK legal firm Allen & Ogilvy who are owed over $600,000 in legal fees. Between them these two Companies are owed over $1.5M dollars following Leisuretech’s loss in the British Courts.
Investigations by ChannelNews have revealed that this patent was used by Goldfinch and fellow directors to buy all the assets of the original Company and then dump them into brand new Company called AC & EM G Pty Limited which now trades as Leisuretech.
According to ChannelNews sources Goldfinch the CEO of Leisuretech put into place a plan to strip the assets of Leisuretech based on the valuation done Lawler and Partners. At the time he had a $2M overdraft with the National Australia Bank.
However insiders are saying that if the A Bus patents were part of the assessment the value is underestimated by several million dollars.
Late last year Leisuretech accused the UK Company Armour Group of not being interested in settling their patent dispute relating to the alleged infringement of A Bus patents prior to the matter going before the UK High Court.
It also appears that while Goldfinch was claiming that he was considering an appeal and that he was “baffled” by Armour Groups decision to pursue him he was in fact working on a plan to place Leisuretech into administration.
Jacqui Israel a solicitor acting for LeisureTech said at the time “It was not ultimately disputed by Armour Group that its Systemline Modular products infringe LeisureTech patent. However, despite LeisureTech going to great lengths to seek to resolve this matter, including its directors travelling to the UK to facilitate meetings, Armour variously declined to meet, cancelled meetings and walked out of mediation without any reasonable discussion taking place”.
“The inability of the parties to reach a commercial settlement is highly regrettable and as a result Armour’s Systemline Modular products remain effectively locked out of the US and other markets where LeisureTech holds a valid patent” .
The Company went on to claim that the decision in the UK High Court is based on peculiarities of the English law and will not impact whatsoever on LeisureTech’s patents in Europe, US, Canada, Mexico, Australia and New Zealand which all remain valid and in full force and effect.
LeisureTech claims that the Armour Group filed an appeal in the European Patent Office, to be determined on an entirely different basis to the UK proceedings and LeisureTech remains confident that the validity of the European patent will be upheld.
LeisureTech is still evaluating the decision in the UK, but its exposure to Armour Group following the litigation is at worst limited to a proportion of their legal costs (far less than millions of dollars as has been suggested by one press report) and may depend on the decision regarding an appeal.
See Comment on this story at LEISURETECH COMMENT
