[ad_1]
123RF
An unpaid debt to a mortgage company has seen a company tied to a controversial New Plymouth business figure placed into receivership. (File photo)
A company tied to a controversial New Plymouth business figure and a proposed multi-million dollar residential project has been placed into receivership.
Lemon St Development Company Ltd, formerly known as Shadow Lion Lemon Street Development Limited, was placed into receivership on August 23.
The sole director of the company is Jon Baker, whose business dealings have been criticised by some in the past in the wake of the demise, and subsequent liquidation, of four hospitality businesses in New Plymouth he, and others, were involved with.
The debt from those businesses, the majority of which related to unpaid PAYE and GST debt to Inland Revenue, totals about $2 million.
Mortgage investment company Alpha First Securities Limited appointed Tauranga-based Tom Rodewald as the receiver of Lemon St Development Company Ltd.
The appointment covers all the company’s present property and all personal property, which the company had rights over.
It also covered any land owned by the company. Property records on Monday showed the company owns two adjacent property titles on Lemon St – 135a and 137a.
This land is the proposed location for an $8m, 20-unit apartment development that Baker has been linked to.
SIMON O’CONNOR/Stuff
Jon Baker declined to comment about a recent receivership related to one of his companies. (File photo)
Two land use consents were filed by Shadow Lion Enterprises Limited for the Lemon St project, which could see a two-storey block of townhouses built on the site.
Baker is the sole director of Shadow Lion Enterprises Ltd.
A New Plymouth District Council spokesperson said staff were still working with the developer on the consents.
No decision had been made yet about whether the consenting process would be publicly notified or not.
When contacted on Monday, Rodewald said the circumstances behind the receivership related to an unpaid demand notice served on the company following the expiry of a loan term.
He was unable to comment regarding how much money was owed.
Baker was also contacted on Monday, but declined to answer questions about whether the unpaid loan related to a commercial or privately owned property, how much money was involved, and whether he was cooperating with the receivership process.
[ad_2]