Mainzeal Property & Construction, one of New Zealand's biggest construction firms, collapsed into receivership in February 2013. New Zealand Herald Photograph by Natalie Slade
Mainzeal Property & Construction, one of New Zealand's biggest construction firms, collapsed into receivership in February 2013. New Zealand Herald Photograph by Natalie Slade
The liquidators for Mainzeal say they have been forced to use bankruptcy proceedings to get $18 million out of former director Richard Yan.
While both sides are appealing the $36 million in damages awarded against several former directors of the failed construction company, Yan hasn't yet paid or said howhe will pay the $18m he has been ordered to front up with.
Justice Francis Cooke ruled earlier this year that Yan and three other directors: Jenny Shipley, Clive Tilby and Peter Gomm were liable, with Yan to pay $18m, and the others to split the other $18m.
Property records indicate Yan part-owns a Remuera property with a ratings value of more than $10m and an Epsom home valued at $4m. He is also the sole shareholder of a company which owns Campbell Park, a 32-hectare estate near Oamaru.
BDO liquidators Andrew Bethell and Brian Mayo-Smith say in a statement that the insurer for the other three directors, QBE, has already provided security for their share of the liability.
"Mr Yan has a legal obligation to pay or secure $18m, being his share," said Bethell. "We have not received this money or had any acknowledgement from Mr Yan that he intends to pay. We have been left with no choice but to get a court order to file bankruptcy proceedings against him to recover the money."
Liquidators say they have not had any acknowledgement from William Yan that he intends to pay.
The appeals and cross-appeal are expected to be heard in the Court of Appeal early next year. The defendants deny liability, while the liquidators say the amount to pay in damages should be higher.
In a judgment dated July 12, Justice Cooke said that his original liability figure was right, despite the liquidators saying interest was not recognised properly and the director defendants saying the judge's starting point was wrong.
