This is where common names gets tricky. search on TG NO. 1 LIMITED (1056240)
Printable View
----
Background
TG No. 1 Limited, (“the Company”) ceased trading as a recruitment agency specializing in IT appointments in 2016 following a sale of the business. The Company has no known creditors and is being placed in liquidation for the purpose of restructuring the shareholders’ affairs.
------
I presume 'TG' comes from the first initial of both Tina Ng, Grant Burley both founding directors of Absolute IT. I presume the company is being liquidated because it is no longer the holding company of 'AbsoluteIT', That shareholding has now been transferred to AWF Madison. I repeat that 'AbsoluteIT' is not being liquidated. I see nothing sinister in any of this. What point are you trying to make Minimoke?
SNOOPY
- Absolute IT Group had certain assets
- It sold certain assets (not the shares) to AWF
- Absolute IT Group appear to be the copyright owner of AWF's Absolute IT brand website.
- This appearance may be true in fact, or a clerical oversight
- If a clerical oversight AWF have had 2 years to fix it. Absolute IT staff have had two years to show some pride and insist it be fixed.
- Absolute IT Group (now renamed TG1), the apparent copyright owner of the website, is being liquidated
- Snoopy likes to buy companies that have problems that can be fixed. How long does it take to fix what may be a basic clerical error.
- This is a distraction from the real issue - AWF is a parent of a company that is in the recruitment space, has shoddy recruitment processes, has shoddy management and is allegedly involved (again) in the illegal exploitation of workers
- this does not bode well for the parents siblings.
Yes
I will take your word for that.Quote:
- It sold certain assets (not the shares) to AWF
Sounds likely.Quote:
- Absolute IT Group appear to be the copyright owner of AWF's Absolute IT brand website.
YesQuote:
- This appearance may be true in fact, or a clerical oversight
You are assuming that AWF do not own the company AbsoluteIT. But if you look up the company records.Quote:
- If a clerical oversight AWF have had 2 years to fix it. Absolute IT staff have had two years to show some pride and insist it be fixed.
https://app.companiesoffice.govt.nz/...ode%3Dadvanced
you will see that;
1/ AWF do own AbsoluteIT, and
2/ AbsoluteIT is not being liquidated.
So arguing over whether AWF acquired the assets of the company -AbsoluteIT- separate from the company or whether these assets are still owned by the company AbsoluteIT is moot, because AWF now own both.
I looked up the company TG1 Holdings Limited. It appears to have no connection whatsoever to any director past or present of AbsoluteIT. A complete red herring.Quote:
- Absolute IT Group (now renamed TG1), the apparent copyright owner of the website, is being liquidated
A clerical error of this kind is immaterial to the performance of the company IMO.Quote:
- Snoopy likes to buy companies that have problems that can be fixed. How long does it take to fix what may be a basic clerical error.
No-one would argue that getting overseas workers to sign illegal contracts is a good thing. But the senior manager who did this has fallen on his sword has left the company. There may yet be further repercussions. But does this one event , which has been owned up to, completely poison the brand and everything that has been achieved over the last 30 years? I say no.Quote:
- This is a distraction from the real issue - AWF is a parent of a company that is in the recruitment space, has shoddy recruitment processes, has shoddy management and is allegedly involved (again) in the illegal exploitation of workers
You assume full responsibility for everything done by your own brothers and/or sisters do you?Quote:
- this does not bode well for the parents siblings.
SNOOPY
Got to admit to getting a bit bored!
But for the sake of clarity
- Absolute IT Group Limited (company Number 1056240) was founded in 2000
- Tina Ng (for example) is a director of Absolute It Group Ltd
- Absolute IT Group Ltd has changed its name to TG No 1 Ltd
- TG No 1 Ltd is in Liquidation
- in TG no Liquidators First report it clearly says ""TG No. 1 Limited, (“the Company”) ceased trading as a recruitment agency specializing in IT appointments in 2016 following a sale of the business".
- in 2016 AWF purchased the agreed assets of Absolute It Group (http://www.awfmadison.co.nz/awf-madi...ys-absolute-it)
- I have no idea if the agreed assets include the Absolute IT Group copyrighted website - the website suggests it didn't, though as we have established this may be a clerical error
- Tina Ng worked for Absolute IT Group - see below. Is a director of Absolute IT Group which is now renamed TG no 1
Thus its all related
Can't say I'm into shakespeare but you may recall the line "The sins of the father are to be laid upon the children"
Now I'm off for a snooze
The company you are referring to there is Absolute IT Ltd. In Dec 2015 Absolute It Ltd was owned by Absolute IT Group (95 shares) and Tracy Lee Johnson (5 shares.)
Absolute IT Ltd is likely one of the agreed assets sold by Absolute It Group to AWF. AWF did not buy Absolute IT Group Ltd
AWF now appear to essentially own the Absolute IT brand. Its call on key clients and staff has now expired.
Still doesn't determine who owns the website!
That number 1056240 is connected to 'Absolute Recruitment Group' NOT 'Absolute IT Group'. I cannot find any reference to an 'Absolute IT Group' on the NZ company register. I don't think it exists or has ever existed.
No, it was 'Absolute Recruitment Group' that changed its name to TG No 1 Ltd on 02-11-2016.Quote:
- Absolute IT Group Ltd has changed its name to TG No 1 Ltd
YesQuote:
- TG No 1 Ltd is in Liquidation
- in TG no Liquidators First report it clearly says ""TG No. 1 Limited, (“the Company”) ceased trading as a recruitment agency specializing in IT appointments in 2016 following a sale of the business".
That press release states that AbsoluteIT, founded in year 2000 was purchased. Now it is true that 'Absolute Recruitment Group' was founded in the year 2000. But so was 'Absolute I. T. Limited' (1056241). The press release suggests to me that the latter company was purchased by AWF Madison, not the former. And if you look up 'Absolute I. T. Limited' 1056241 you will see that AWF Madison is now indeed the sole shareholder of 'Absolute I. T. Limited' .Quote:
- in 2016 AWF purchased the agreed assets of Absolute It Group (http://www.awfmadison.co.nz/awf-madi...ys-absolute-it)
- I have no idea if the agreed assets include the Absolute IT Group copyrighted website - the website suggests it didn't, though as we have established this may be a clerical error
The 'AWF Madison' press release does not say the agreed assets were purchased separately from the company 'Absolute I. T. Limited'. If you purchase a company, you also purchase the assets that the company owns. If the assets were actually purchased outside of the company structure it doesn't matter, because either way AWF Madison now owns the assets.
Both Madison and AbsoluteIT have separate origins from the AWF division. I don't think you can say that any rotton business culture, if it exists, will permeate to the other two. Madison and AbsoluteIT are adopted step children.Quote:
Can't say I'm into shakespeare but you may recall the line "The sins of the father are to be laid upon the children"
Now I'm off for a snooze
SNOOPY
Thats what I was saying back at #664 - sorry for the confusion with the IT bit. Thought it was making sense. Perhaps we should just rely on the audit statement in the Annual report "As disclosed in note G of the consolidated financial statements,the Group acquired the Absolute IT Group (consisting of fiveseparate entities) during the year for $14.7m."
I think it might have been better worded "As disclosed in note G of the consolidated financial statements, the Group acquired five separate IT entities of the Absolute Recruitment Group during the year for $14.7m."
Still doesnt resolve the question of who owns the website copyright
Looking back on segment reporting I hadn’t fully comprehended how much sales to industry (presumably Allied) had fallen as a result of the hard times in the construction sector.
F18 sales heading back to levels seen 4 to 5 years ago ...and margins falling as well.
Doesn’t look good
Bring back Kurt maybe the answer
Agree ..beat up companies are often good investments. That’s what piqued my interest.Quote:
Snoops -
It is the problems that cause the share price discount that creates the investment opportunity Winner. If you wait for the problems to be resolved, the share price discount also disappears. In my case I almost always invest in companies with problems that I believe the media has overstated.
I don’t think it’s been any media beatup that caused the share price to fall where it is today ....it’s the market reaction to ongoing disappointing AWF performance.
I can’t see the current issues being resolved quickly.... it all points to more pain.
Maybe the next crunch point is when we know how much less than $5.9m F18 earnings turn out to be.
One thing that boost profits a bit is when they make a favourable adjustment to what they have provided to cover the earn out payment re ITAbsolute if targets aren’t met