VANCE v VEY GROUP LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1676
The Court found the Trustees had standing once vested as registered shareholders; the sole director's conduct in misleading the Trustees about share registration, excluding them from voting on a proposed sale, failing to provide timely financial records and material disclosure, and purporting to authorise a major financing without proper shareholder approval cumulatively amounted to conduct that was oppressive, unfairly discriminatory and unfairly prejudicial. The Court granted just and equitable relief short of immediate liquidation: appointment of an independent accountant to prepare accounts, determine the disputed inter-company debt and opine a fair price for the 49% shares,...
- Citation
- [2019] NZHC 1676
- Parties
- Plaintiff (trustee of Orana Trust): David Vance; Plaintiff (trustee of Orana Trust): Ian Millard QC; First Defendant (company): Vey Group Limited; Second Defendant (sole Director): Leslie William Fugle
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 18 July 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Application Under S 174 Companies Act 1993 (oppressive/unfair Prejudice) / High Court Judgment (hearing 28–29 May 2019; Judgment 18 July 2019)
- Outcome
- Application under s 174 granted in part; remedial orders made requiring independent accounting and a modified share buy-out process; liquidation/receivership reserved if non-cooperation or process fails
- Legal Topics
- Oppression/unfairly Prejudicial Conduct, Shareholder Remedies, Liquidation Vs Buy Out, Share Registration and Voting Rights, Disclosure and Financial Records, Major Transaction Approval
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
David Vance
Plaintiff (trustee of Orana Trust)
Ian Millard QC
Plaintiff (trustee of Orana Trust)
Vey Group Limited
First Defendant (company)
Leslie William Fugle
Second Defendant (sole Director)
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 174 Companies Act 1993 (oppressive/unfair Prejudice) / High Court Judgment (hearing 28–29 May 2019; Judgment 18 July 2019)
Legal Issues
- 1 Standing of court-appointed trustees to bring s 174 application
- 2 Whether director's conduct was oppressive, unfairly discriminatory or unfairly prejudicial
- 3 Appropriate remedy if oppression established (buy-out, liquidation or other)
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found the Trustees had standing once vested as registered shareholders; the sole director's conduct in misleading the Trustees about share registration, excluding them from voting on a proposed sale, failing to provide timely financial records and material disclosure, and purporting to authorise a major financing without proper shareholder approval cumulatively amounted to conduct that was oppressive, unfairly discriminatory and unfairly prejudicial. The Court granted just and equitable relief short of immediate liquidation: appointment of an independent accountant to prepare accounts, determine the disputed inter-company debt and opine a fair price for the 49% shares,...
Court Disposition
Application under s 174 granted in part; remedial orders made requiring independent accounting and a modified share buy-out process; liquidation/receivership reserved if non-cooperation or process fails
Orders
- An independent accountant, to be appointed by the chairperson of the Auckland District Law Society, is to prepare Vey Group Limited's financial statements from 2015 to date and form a view on the alleged debt owed by Vey to Orana and provide an opinion on a fair price for Orana's 49% shareholding; the accountant...
- Upon completion of the accountant's report and valuation, the Trustees must give irrevocable notice of desire to sell the 49% shareholding within 14 days; other shareholders will have 14 days to state in writing whether they wish to purchase the shares at the accountant's price and, if they elect to purchase, 14...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment