Ruling in favour of major claimant means less for 300 others in late financier’s fund
The biggest investor in one of Allan Hubbard’s shambolic business vehicles has won about $372,000 in court costs from it, further diluting the amount available to 300 others.
This follows a High Court judge siding with Geraldine businessman Graham Carr over how much he is entitled to from Hubbard Management Funds (HMF).
One of Hubbard’s unincorporated vehicles, HMF had no separate corporate identity and traded assets freely with other entities controlled by the late Timaru financier.
Investors in HMF received unreliable statements, with Hubbard seemingly reporting positions based on his intentions instead of the actual situation.
HMF has been in the hands of accounting firm Grant Thornton since 2010, after the Government appointed statutory managers to numerous entities associated with Hubbard and his wife Jean.
The statutory managers, which worked to untangle these entities’ affairs, announced in 2013 that HMF investors would get all their capital back and they have since repaid $20 million, or 50c in the dollar.
HMF’s remaining assets were worth $16 million as at December last year, according to the managers’ latest report.
Further payouts were on hold awaiting a dispute with Carr, who has deer farming interests and was HMF’s largest investor.
That High Court dispute — over whether four transactions where money went from Carr's HMF account to one of Hubbard's should be treated as withdrawals and deducted from his net position — was decided in the businessman’s favour in February.
If it had gone against him, Carr may not have been entitled to any of HMF’s assets.
While the details remain suppressed, Justice Rachel Dunningham’s decision significantly reduced the amount that would have otherwise been available to around 300 of HMF’s smaller investors.
The statutory managers and Carr, who spent $638,012 on the case, could not agree on court costs and the matter came back before Justice Dunningham last week.
Carr was seeking the full amount he spent — which was made up of $433,314 of legal fees, $198,276 for witness expenses, and disbursements of $6217.
If he couldn’t get the full $433,314 of legal fees, Carr pushed to get $216,726 of these and failing that, $167,506 of them.
One of Carr’s supporting arguments was he offered to settle the case a week before it went before a judge last September.
The statutory managers, however, said Carr should get only $53,083 of the legal fees incurred.
One of their arguments was that if Carr got full costs this would have a “significant impact on the balance in HMF to the extent that investors would no longer receive all of their capital back”.
Justice Dunningham said the difficulties in working out Carr’s entitlement in HMF were beyond either side’s control.
While Carr had spent money opposing the statutory managers, the judge said awarding full costs would “detrimentally impact on all investors as they are also bearing the costs of the statutory managers’ legal fees”.
“While I acknowledge that, as one of the largest investors, GCNZL [Carr’s company] will share in that cost, given the significant financial benefit GCNZL has obtained through these proceedings, I think it should bear some portion of the cost to achieve that result, particularly while it is not the statutory managers’ fault that the position was unclear,” she said.
She ordered Carr receive legal fees of $167,506, which with the witness expenses and other disbursements means he is due around $372,000.
Neither Carr nor one of the statutory managers returned messages yesterday.