11 hours ago
Du Val directors Kenyon and Charlotte Clarke want assets unfrozen and passports back
Du Val director Kenyon Clarke.
Photo:
The Financial Markets Authority has hit back at claims by Du Val directors that it is to blame for the "train wreck" collapse of the property group.
Lawyers for the authority and for
Du Val's directors Kenyon and Charlotte Clarke have been in the High Court
at Auckland this week, arguing about whether receivership should continue for the couple and the handful of Du Val companies not in statutory management.
The Clarkes want to be out of receivership, their assets unfrozen and their passports returned from the control of the High Court.
Their lawyer Ron Mansfield said receivership orders were "excessively broad" and oppressive and should end.
The FMA had had months to investigate but had not come up with any solid evidence - and the Clarkes claim it was the FMA action that cause the train wreck, he said.
However, FMA lawyer Jenny Cooper said that claim could not go unanswered.
"It is assertion without substance," she said.
The FMA had good grounds to step in and to keep investigating because the investigation was a complex one that would take time, she said.
The Clarkes could speed it up by being more open with receivers and investigators, she said.
A court directive to force the Clarkes to be interviewed by receivers under oath about their assets was currently being heard by the Court of Appeal.
Cooper noted the very complex and large company structure of about 70 entities.
"The Clarkes are not people who have straightforward accounting arrangements," she said.
The receivership and associated orders were still needed because there was an ongoing investigation into the group, Cooper said
The FMA presented evidence about why that should continue but much of it was suppressed so it would not prejudice any civil or criminal action that could follow.
Justice Jane Anderson also noted the FMA was still in an investigation phase and the Clarkes had not had a chance to respond - and were not in a position to because of a lack of information.
The FMA did not have to prove any wrongdoing at this hearing, just that there was enough evidence to show more investigation was needed and the receivership should stay.
Most of the arguments about why the Clarkes should or should not get their passports back were also suppressed.
Justice Anderson had initially allowed the argument to be reported, but Mansfield was seeking leave to appeal.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
