There are quite a few people on this site who do not like Damien Grant. Personally, I only came to hear of him relatively recently, probably over his refusal to cease setting off fireworks at his rural Auckland home. That has angered some of his neighbors, and given him a lot of publicity, good or bad. I have read some of his articles and have agreed with some of them. I have even quoted some on this site. Now, a new twist has appeared in his somewhat colourful career. Grant has been operating as a liquidator for a number of years, but because of past criminal convictions, he is now unable to apply for a licence to practise with the Restructuring, Insolvency and Turnaround Association New Zealand (Ritanz) because, as he has a criminal record, he is not classed as a ‘fit and proper person’.
RITANZ was formed in 2015, and has managed to reach the point where all practising liquidators have to be licensed members. Chartered accountants can practise as liquidators, but he would never be accepted as a member of CAANZ with a criminal record either. If he were already a member and was convicted of criminal activity, particularly as Grant’s conviction included a jail sentence, his CAANZ membership would automatically be revoked.
Grant has been a practising liquidator since 2006 and has a number of high profile supporters, including Don Brash, who apparently wrote an affidavit in support of his character. However, the judge determined that it was not his role to determine the quality of Grant’s character, but in fact to determine whether or not the process had been carried out lawfully, so character witnesses are not much use to Grant.
The question here is one of redemption. Grant accepted his punishment, served his time and rebuilt his life decades ago. His last conviction was in 1994. The justice system is there to mete out punishment but also to allow people to rebuild their lives. Are we being fair to Grant in continuing to punish him for crimes he committed almost 30 years ago?
Normally, the answer would be no, but it is not quite so simple in this case, which is unfortunate for Damien Grant.
The insolvency profession has largely been unregulated until recently. Chartered accountants do practise insolvency as a specialist area, but a large number of liquidators have no formal qualifications. This has resulted in a number of rogue practitioners, who had no governing body to hold them to account. In fact, in some cases, liquidators clearly acted in the interests of creditors to the serious detriment of the insolvent parties they were supposed to be representing. And they always, always acted in their own interests before everything else, charging large fees for questionable or minimal amounts of work.
As an accountant, I have worked with a few liquidators. Some of the ones operating from big accounting firms really do charge like wounded bulls, but many of the smaller operators are suspect. I found a really good one, based on the Kapiti coast, who was prudent, pragmatic and charged reasonable fees. I sent all my relevant clients to him, and he never let me down once. He will, I am sure, have no trouble getting a licence to practise as a liquidator.
And therin lies the problem for Damien Grant. The insolvency profession, having had a bit of a bad reputation for cowboys and shysters, is trying to clean up its act. It needs to act like all other professional bodies, holding its members to high professional standards, so that it can drive the shonky operators out of business and regain a good reputation for the industry.
And how can they do that if they give a licence to someone with a criminal record, even if it was a long time ago?
I am unaware of any complaints about Grant’s activities as an insolvency professional, but that is not the problem. If RITANZ is to gain any respect as a professional body, it has to act like all other professional bodies where trust is paramount, and it has to refuse Grant’s license. Its own reputation will be diminished if it acts otherwise.
I understand this is a shame for Damien Grant, and I understand the arguments about redemption, but a former criminal becoming a member of a professional body cheapens that professional body, and they will not achieve what they seek to achieve, which is to drive the cowboys out of the profession.
And the reputations of all other professionals acting as liquidators, except chartered accountants (who are held to account by their own professional body), will be diminished because of it. And that is too high a price to pay for one operator with a criminal record, even if it was from a long time ago.
If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.