On 7 September 2010 the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Act 2010 was approved by the NZ Parliament and received the Royal Assent. It embodies a wide range of legislative reforms that are well overdue and are overwhelmingly supported by industry members. Under s. 219 and 220 of the Act it is an offence for a company to use in its name any of the following words, unless the company is legitimately engaged in lawful insurance transactions, those words being “insurance”, “assurance”, “underwriter”, and “reinsurance” or words with identical meanings.
So where does this leave privately owned so-called ‘insurance’ companies such as the obscure entity Cheyenne Insurance Company (NZ) Ltd that are not lawfully entitled to engage in any insurance transactions, and which appear to have been largely operating in property development transactions in New Zealand, largely based in Central Otago?
Cheyenne Insurance, directed by American businessman John M Carr CPA (see photo – http://www.carr.co.nz/images/jmc.jpg) since 24 May 1991 and owned by him since 26 July 1990, has never deposited the required security (minimum $500,000) with the NZ Public Trust that would entitle it to lawfully engage in insurance transactions in New Zealand under the Insurance Companies’ Deposits Act 1953. Then what exactly is it doing in New Zealand?
On Friday 15 October 2010 John Malcolm Carr was convicted in the Auckland District Court of a number of offences under the Financial Reporting Act 1993, brought against him as company director by the Ministry of Economic Development (MED). His lawyer who entered the guilty pleas on behalf of his absent client (Carr), informed the Court that Cheyenne Insurance owned a foreign registered company Carr Consultancy P.A. (formerly called Cuchara Inc.) that was the “immediate holding company” for the four NZ registered companies directed and owned by Carr, that were the subject of the offences committed by Mr Carr under the FRA.
See: US-based critic of economy [John M Carr CPA] has lots more to say
The structure appears a little odd and reminiscent of a classic double blind tax evasion scheme set up by those who hold both NZ and foreign citizenship? SPCS hope that the MED will refer this company structure/arrangement onto tax authorities.
The media (NZ Herald 12 August) has documented the fact that the MED has been unable to make contact with Mr Carr at any of his registered addresses on the Companies Office for almost a year. Mr Carr did not turn up to the Court to four separate fixtures (12 & 31 August, 28 September, 15 October). At the third fixture his lawyer of many years – Alan Bevan McKay of Checketts McKay Law, Cromwell – informed the court that the task of representing his client had been delegated to another lawyer at the next fixture.
At the end of the 2009 NZ tax year Mr Carr moved the ownership (shareholding) of all four NZ registered companies at the heart of the MED investigation, from the Florida registered corporation Carr Consulting PA (the so-called “holding company”) into his own name. These four share transfers were recorded on the Companies Office website on 20 April 2010 (www.companies.govt.nz).
Cheyenne Insurance now has no shares in any of the many NZ registered companies John M Carr owns and/or directs. It is left holding the proverbial baby – Carr Consulting P.A. – a corporation mandated under tight strictures in Florida to operate as a Professional Association (P.A.) – but which has been operating as nothing more than a “holding company” according to Mr Carr’s lawyer. Is this a tax dodge or what?
Insurance Companies’ Deposits Act 1953
Life Insurance Act 1908
Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Act 2010
Section 219. Certain New Zealand persons and overseas companies prohibited from using certain words in name
John M Carr – Cheyenne Insurance Co. (NZ) Ltd $5.5 M property bonanza
Published by SPCS: February 17, 2010
John M Car – Carr Consulting P.A. and Cromwell NZ property sales
Published By SPCS: February 16, 2010
1. Insurance and Superannuation Unit, Ministry of Economic Development
2. NZ Insurance Council
3. NZ Public Trust Head Office, Wellington
Society’s Executive Note (added 12 Jan 2011):
The Society has received a comment on this posting dated 11 January 2011 from a banned company director [name withheld to protect his identity] who claims to be a current “business partner” of director John Malcolm Carr. However, no evidence has been produced to support this claim. None to the best of our knowledge has ever been published in the NZ media or elsewhere.
The writer seeks to make detailed comments on Mr John M Carr’s companies, staffing matters involving his companies, “regulatory offences” committed by Mr Carr that were dealt with in the Auckland District Court on 15 October 2010 and other matters relating to his possible motives for choosing not to divulge certain information to NZ authorities (e.g. correct names shareholder, correct residential address etc.).
In the light of the following facts, the Society executive has decided that it is not prudent to publish any of these comments by this writer because he has:
(1) been banned by the NZ Ministry of Economic Development (MED) from directing, promotng or managing any company for four years under a section of the Companies Act, which is designed to protect the public from directors with a history of unsuccessful ventures. (It would be morally reprehensible to allow the writer, a banned director, to publicly comment on the business affairs, motives etc of a truly legitimate and legally authorised NZ company director).
(2) sought to present ‘facts’ about the staffing situation etc of Mr John M Carr’s companies about which only an authorised director, or an authorised manager or lawyer, is entitled to present publicly the true facts on.
(3) made repeated legal threats publicly against the MED/ Registrar of Companies that he (the writer) intends to overturn its banning order on him, using the courts.
(4) made repeated legal threats against a number of non-profit organisations that genuinely seek to promote the “public good”.
In addition the Society’s block or ‘lock-down’ (they are being kept on file) on the comments attempting to be posted by the banned director are for these additional reasons:
(5) Legal advice sought and received from our legal advisors.
(6) Advice from the National Enforcement Unit of the Companies Office that imposed the four year ban on the writer who is well known to them. We have been informed by the MED that it would be “prudent” not to publish the content relating in any way to a legitimate legally authorised director – Mr John Malcolm Carr – and/or his business affairs.
(7) Consideration of common sense matters. The writer has no authority to comment on the business affairs of a director whose livilihood might be seriously jeopardised by the propulgation and dissemination of false and/or misleading information, etc. about his companies – posted on our website by one acting ulta vires.
(8) Consideration of the fact that the writer is quite capable of writing a letter to the editor of any New Zealand newspaper identifying himself by her or his full legal name as the “[X] business partner of John Malcolm Carr” and staing the matters he claims about this gentleman’s companies for all to see and scrutinise. THis is called by some “the straight shooter approach” and we commend it. The companies owning such media vehicles willing to publish such a letter, also carry public indemnity to cover for false representation etc. should this occur.
(9) The SPCS website is not designed or intended to allow writers to cast judgment on the rulings of honourable Judges or Registrars made against individuals who can take legal action themselves against enfoorcement agencies that impose banning orders etc. or who impose substantial fines at sentencing on company directors who plead guilty to offences in the criminal courts.
Copied from www.companies.govt.nz
Notice prohibiting persons from managing companies
Pursuant to Section 385 of the Companies Act 1993
Pursuant to section 385(3) of the Companies Act 1993, I, Peter Barker, Deputy Registrar of Companies, hereby prohibit the following person [XXX] from being a director or promoter of, or being concerned in, or taking part, whether directly or indirectly, in the management of any company from the date of commencement and duration specified in the list of persons below.
Deputy Registrar of Companies
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”. Evelyn Beatrice Hall
[In this case the Society advises our banned director correspondent to publish what he has to say in a reputable NZ newspaper]