Sidebar

Ross Group (In Receivership and/or In Liquidation)

This website is your primary source of information related to the receivership and/or liquidation of Ross Asset Management Limited and related entities (the "Ross Group"):

  • Ross Asset Management Limited (In Liquidation)

  • Bevis Marks Corporation Limited (In Liquidation)

  • Dagger Nominees Limited (In Liquidation)

  • McIntosh Asset Management Limited (In Liquidation)

  • Mercury Asset Management Limited (In Liquidation)

  • Ross Investment Management Limited (In Liquidation)

  • Ross Unit Trusts Management Limited (In Liquidation)

  • United Asset Management Limited (In Liquidation)

  • Chapman Ross Trust (In Receivership)

  • Woburn Ross Trust (In Receivership)

  • Mr David Robert Gilmour Ross (In Receivership)

  • Ace Investments Limited or Ace Investment Trust Limited or Ace Investment Trust (In Receivership)

  • Vivian Investments Limited (In Receivership)

  • Ross Units Trusts Limited (In Receivership)

  • The DRG Ross Family Trust (In Receivership)

Looking for information?

  • Frequently asked questions

  • Submit an enquiry

  • Postal
    Ross Asset Management Limited (In Liquidation) and related entities
    PricewaterhouseCoopers
    PO Box 243
    Wellington

  • Facsimile: +64 (04) 462 7492

  • Telephone message line: +64 (04) 462 7040

This site will be updated as information becomes available.

We encourage you to visit this site if you have any concerns and/or additional enquiries.

Updates:

Update

7 September 2016

On 1 September 2016 the liquidators of Ross Asset Management Limited (In Liquidation) lodged a notice in the Court of Appeal to appeal the High Court's decision in Priest v Ross Asset Management Limited. No date has yet been set for a hearing.

10 August 2016

Update

9 August 2016

The High Court has held that Duncan and Nora Priest are entitled to shares valued at circa $2 million. The liquidators of Ross Asset Management Limited (In Liquidation) ('RAM') had argued that the shares formed part of the general body of assets available to RAM's investors.

The Court held that the circumstances surrounding the acquisition and holding of the Priest shares were sufficiently different than the situation with other RAM investors, that a bare trust in favour solely of the Priests was created and that trust endures the receivership and liquidation of RAM. Accordingly the shares do not form part of the general body of assets available to RAM's investors.

The liquidators are reviewing the decision to determine whether to appeal.

18 July 2016

8 July 2016

8 June 2016

Update

2 June 2016

On 26 May 2016 the Supreme Court granted leave to hear both the appeal and the cross-appeal in McIntosh v Fisk. The date for the substantive hearing has been set for Wednesday 27 July 2016.

Update

20 April 2016

On 16 March 2016 the Court of Appeal released its judgment on McIntosh v Fisk confirming the decision in the High Court that fictitious profits should be repaid to the liquidators for the benefit of all creditors. The liquidators were denied their cross-appeal for claw-back of capital withdrawals, with Miller J dissenting on this point.

The liquidators were advised on 15 April 2016 that McIntosh has applied for leave to appeal the fictitious profits aspect of the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Supreme Court. As a result of this, the liquidators now intend to apply for leave to cross-appeal on the matter of capital withdrawals. If leave to appeal is granted, we will also be making an application for this appeal to be heard with urgency.

The liquidators will be in further contact with the affected investors in due course.

Update

17 March 2016

The Court of Appeal has confirmed the High Court ruling in Fisk v McIntosh. All three judges agreed that the Liquidators of Ross Asset Management Limited (In Liquidation) are entitled to claw back the full amount of fictitious profits received by an investor prior to liquidation. The claim was successful under both the provisions of the Companies Act 1993 and the Property Law Act 2006.

By a majority decision (2-1), the Court declined the liquidators’ cross-appeal seeking to recover the full value of withdrawals, being both capital deposited and fictitious profits. One dissenting judge would have allowed this cross-appeal.

The Liquidators note that the Court has attempted to balance the interests of both the individual investor and the general body of creditors based on the prevailing law which binds the Court of Appeal.

The liquidators are currently considering whether to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision on the capital aspect to the Supreme Court. They will consult the liquidation committee about this. In light of the decision, the Liquidators intend to continue with the two existing cases which have been commenced in the High Court as well as writing to other investors who have made withdrawals in the last six years where the Liquidators consider a claim exists.

3 February 2016

15 January 2016

25 September 2015

Further to our recent update, the Court of Appeal has moved the date of the appeal hearing in Fisk v McIntosh from 10 November 2015 to 19 November 2015.

8 September 2015

8 September 2015

15 July 2015

1 July 2015

Update

23 June 2015

The High Court has confirmed that the Liquidators of Ross Asset Management Limited (In Liquidation) ('RAM') are entitled to claw back the full amount of fictitious profits received by an investor prior to the Company's liquidation. The claim was successful under both the provisions of the Companies Act 1993 and the Property Law Act 2006.

The Liquidators note that the Court has attempted to balance the interests of both the individual investor and the general body of creditors. The decision provides guidance to allow further such claims to be made by them - with the aim of providing a higher return to those investors remaining when RAM was placed into liquidation.

In light of the decision, the Liquidators intend to continue with the two existing cases which have been commenced in the High Court. They are also reviewing the position of a number of other investors who have received payments from RAM in the period leading up to the Company's liquidation.

The judgment can be found here: FISK v HAMISH McINTOSH [2015] NZHC 1403 [22 June 2015]

23 January 2015

15 January 2015

28 July 2014

10 July 2014

4 July 2014

30 May 2014

14 May 2014

17 March 2014

20 December 2013

20 December 2013

20 December 2013

14 November 2013

 

14 November 2013

15 August 2013

17 July 2013

4 July 2013

4 July 2013

12 June 2013

June 2013

30 April 2013

21 March 2013

March 2013

11 February 2012

February 2013

20 December 2012

17 December 2012

Update

3 December 2012

  • The Receivers and Managers to Ross Group today submitted liquidation applications to the High Court of New Zealand for a number of the companies currently in receivership. A High Court hearing date of Monday 17 December 2012 has been allocated.
     

  • This is consistent with their Report and Memorandum of Counsel submitted and presented to the High Court of New Zealand for review (respectively on 15 November and 23 November 2012).

 

Update

26 November 2012

The Receivers and Managers to Ross Asset Management Limited and related entities (In Receivership) submitted a Memorandum of Counsel on Friday 23 November 2012, for the High Court of New Zealand to review today (Monday 26 November).

The Receivers and Managers confirmed no additional significant assets have been located since their last report to the Courts and investors. The latest value of assets identified as supporting investors' portfolios is $11.478 million with inquiries continuing.

The Receivers also updated the Court with their opinion that those Ross Group companies holding assets be placed in liquidation and that a relevant application to do so will be filed shortly with the Court. Those entities not holding assets should remain in receivership.

For avoidance of doubt, the Receivers and Managers sought re-confirmation from the Court that they be allowed to sell assets owned by the wider Ross Group in order to pay for reasonable fees and costs incurred to date in their administration (e.g. receivership fees and costs, advertising and legal fees). Today's High Court hearing re-confirmed the Court's earlier ruling that the receivers can sell such property to cover those costs and fees incurred.

The Receivers and Managers continue to work through the process of preparing liquidation applications.

Update to investors

22 November 2012

Following the release of Mr David Ross from hospital yesterday, the Receivers and Managers have been able to meet with Mr Ross this afternoon. The purpose of the meeting was to confirm the financial position of each of the entities to which the Receivers have been appointed to.

Mr Ross has been fully cooperative in answering the Receivers' and Managers' questions.
Mr Ross and the Receivers reviewed the Report submitted to the High Court on 13 November 2012.

Based on this meeting, the Receivers and Managers do not expect to locate any further assets of significant value within the Ross Group (In Receivership). The Receivers and Managers acknowledge this will be extremely disappointing news for investors.

Further work will now be focused on finalising the collection of information from brokers by the Receivers and Managers, and reporting to the Court this Monday on proposed next steps.

22 November 2012

15 November 2012

Update

12 November 2012

Receivers from PwC and brokers NZ First Capital to date have been identifying and preserving assets on behalf of investors, as per the orders obtained by FMA.

12 November 2012

8 November 2012

6 November 2012


  • Print