Dame Jenny Shipley and her fellow Mainzeal Property & Construction directors Peter Gomm and Clive Tilby are appealing a High Court judgment which found they breached their duties as directors of the company prior to its collapse by allowing it to engage in reckless trading.
Mainzeal collapsed in 2013 owing unsecured creditors, mainly subcontractors, $110 million.
Shipley, Gomm and Tilby and fellow director Richard Yan were found guilty of breaches of the Companies Act in February and ordered to pay up to $36 million between them towards the losses suffered by creditors, with Shipley, Gomm and Tilby's liability capped at $6 million each.
A statement issued by Shipley, Gomm and Tilby's lawyers Chapman Tripp said the trio would file an appeal against the decision today (26 March).
"The Directors do not agree with the High Court judgment and believe they have strong grounds to challenge the decision," the statement said.
Yan has already, separately filed his own appeal against the High Court judgment.
The comment stream on this story is now closed.
You can receive all of our property articles automatically by subscribing to our free email Property Newsletter. This will deliver all of our property-related articles, including auction results and interest rate updates, directly to your in-box 3-5 times a week. We don't share your details with third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time. To subscribe just click on this link, scroll down to "Property email newsletter" and enter your email address.
14 Comments
Anyone surprised by this? Keeping it in Court as long as possible, while the parties get their affairs in order is hardly surprising.
or to get the judgement below the level of directors insurance
[ Please do not use interest.co.nz to promote potentially defamatory accusations. Ed ]
Chapman Tripp state that these directors believe that they have strong grounds etc etc. Lawyer talk of course, but they would say that wouldn’t they. Assume none of them are on legal aid.
[ Please do not use interest.co.nz to promote potentially defamatory accusations. Ed ]
Whatever the outcome of the appeals I believe Jenny's days as a crack go getter business tycoon are over.
I hope that the argument is made that they should be paying $100m plus costs instead. The $36m judgement is too low.
Yes, there is a risk the Court of Appeal could increase their penalty which will be in addition to the costs of appeal. They got off lightly
In recent time courts have become more interventionist
I never found the explanation as to why it was never an issue in court that vast sums went to China and never came back. Maybe there was a good reason it was never pursued but I never saw it. So?
The parent company was called Richina, not Richnewzealand.
Anyone know what would be the level of insurance the directors would likely have for these instances?
Can't expect these rich listers to pay fines can you? Quelle Horreur!
Only the little people pay taxes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axQDF94BAgs
Shipley was happy to pocket her director's fees and for what? The cachet of having a former PM on the board?
It was certainly not for financial acumen. I hope the appeals lose.There simply has to be much better protection of sub-contractors. How many of them went bust as a result of the incompetence of the directors?
You did not have to vote for her, and I am happy to concede she could have done better here. But when in office as PM Jenny Shipley's grasp of the detail in any brief was awesome. A useful attribute for a director.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.