Snakk Media's liquidators are assessing whether the company can be sold as a going concern but say they are not optimistic as there are no tangible assets.

Tech company founded by Derek Handley folds
Derek Handley under fire at Sky Television AGM

A more realistic option might be to sell Snakk's listing on the New Zealand Stock Exchange given there is a security bond that could be recovered.

Snakk, a mobile advertising company, first listed on the NZX in March 2013 with entrepreneur Derek Handley, who was chairman, owning 22.6 per cent of the company.


Handley stepped down from the board in 2015 and the latest annual report does not list him as among the company's top 20 shareholders.

Gareth Hoole and Clive Bish of Ecovis KGA were appointed liquidators on March 14 following a period of voluntary administration.

Snakk's last share price trade was at 5.5c a share (valuing it at $965,600) having dropped 39 per cent in the past year. The company compliance listed on the NZAX in March 2013 at 6.5c a share and hit a low of 3.5c in October.

In their first report the liquidators said the company held no tangible assets and the intellectual property underlying the business model could not be identified or belonged to a third party.

The company has a number of debtor balances which require collection, including a $4.35 million advance to a subsidiary company.

"At the time of appointment the company was prima facie solvent, but the significant likelihood of non-collection of the related party advance would render it insolvent," the liquidators said

"At this time, [the liquidators] have not been able to determine how long the company traded under insolvent circumstances, if at all."

The report identifies creditor claims of $274,410, of which $272,160 are unsecured.


Assets include a bank deposit of $1,839, intellectual property rights (including the NZX bond) of $44,679 and the related party loan of $4.35m to subsidiary companies in Australia and Singapore, both of which are no longer trading.

The liquidators say they will pursue action against the directors of the company if evidence exists to support such action and it is considered economically beneficial.