Christchurch businessman Mike Pero is facing High Court action from the mortgage broking company he set up more than two decades ago and which still bears his name.
The nature of Mike Pero Mortgages' claim against its founder, although surfacing during an Auckland hearing yesterday, was kept under wraps by Associate Judge John Matthews, who did not permit the reporting of it.
Although he is its public face, Pero does not own any of the mortgage business and left its board in June of this year.
Since then, Mike Pero Mortgages - which claims to be New Zealand's largest mortgage broking company - has filed two different sets of High Court proceedings against Pero or a firm he directs.
The first is an application to set aside a demand for payment of directors fees issued against the mortgage company by Mike Pero Marketing.
Pero, who yesterday would not reveal the amount involved, is the sole director and part owner of this marketing business.
Both the marketing and the mortgage firms are joint-shareholders of the company which owns Mike Pero Real Estate, a separate business of which Pero is chief executive.
The second set of action filed by the mortgage firm is against both Pero personally and the marketing company but the Herald is not, at least at this time, allowed to report the allegations in this proceeding.
Pero and the marketing company have applied for orders to stop lawyers at firm Buddle Findlay acting for the mortgage business in the two sets of litigation.
Lawyer David Bigio, in arguing for this application before Associate Judge Matthews yesterday, said Pero had enjoyed a relationship with Buddle Findlay since 2007.
The firm was already acting for Pero on unrelated litigation in Christchurch, Bigio said, when it was instructed by the mortgage business for the present disputes and Pero "perceived there to be a conflict of interest" and raised the matter immediately with the firm.
Bigio argued it was inappropriate for Buddle Findlay to be acting for both Pero and a party suing him.
Mike Pero Mortgages lawyer Greg Blanchard opposed the application on the basis that the sets of litigation were unrelated.
Associate Judge Matthews reserved his decision on the application.