Family behind firms investigated by FMA wants more than $1000 a week

The family behind a string of companies being investigated by the Financial Markets Authority have returned to court seeking more than $1000 a week for expenses, saying it is “the least amount necessary.”

And they want the return of personal items taken by receivers PwC, dubbed “unjustified overkill,” as well as the release of legal fees and revoking the appointment of the receivers.

But the FMA says it has some concern about the expenses requested and says the receivers are entirely appropriate.

However, a continued confidentiality order means specific monetary details cannot be reported.

Last month, PwC was appointed as receivers and managers of PTT Ltd, also known as Prosper Through Trading, as well as six associated entities on a limited basis, allowing it to identify and preserve any funds and assets, as well as the names of clients.

The FMA says it has concerns PTT’s client funds may be at risk and the company “may be operating in breach of financial market legislation.”

Details of the first receivers report, as well as the allegations, were heard before Justice Anne Hinton in the High Court at Auckland today.

The same confidentiality orders prevent NBR from reporting them as well, however.

A fortnight ago, Lisa Robertson successfully argued for the return of a cellphone and a $92,000 wedding ring, which was confiscated after the FMA made asset preservation orders against PTT and six other entities, including Ms Roberston, Steven Robertson, and a family trust.

Nathan Gedye, QC, had requested Ms Robertson be removed from the orders because she is not related to the central allegations.

It was heard the family of five only has access to $1000 a week for expenses but Mr Gedye applied for the Robertsons’ mortgage payments to be paid fortnightly from their frozen assets.

Today, Mr Gedye told Justice Hinton the family wants its budget amended, a one-off sum paid for rates and arrears, the return of personal items and passports, the payment of legal fees, and the revocation and retirement of the receivers.

Justice Hinton has reserved her decision, saying she will make it as early as possible next week.

Every matchstick, every dollar
Mr Gedye says his clients do not admit liability or wrongdoing and disputes aspects of the receivers’ report.

They accept the asset preservation orders, which they are well aware of and prevent them from disposing assets, but say the receivers are “unjustified overkill.”

“They literally have nothing, not a cent, outside what the court will let them have.

“Every matchstick, every dollar, is frozen.”

Mr Gedye says it is degrading for the family to be beholden to the FMA and that the orders should be trimmed back.

He also disputes how it can be suggested the estate should pay the receivers fee, which is confidential.

But Dale La Hood, representing the FMA, says the matter is still at an early stage, with the FMA still pondering some of the issues raised today.

He says there is a “certain air of unreality” about how reasonable the expenses sought are.

It is absolutely necessary for receivers to continue, he says, before a proper application to liquidate the companies is made.

“It is a properly brought and quite concerning investigation under way.”

Use MyNBR Tags to track people and companies — and receive key-word email alerts. Find out how here.