With a proxy battle looming, the court file could prove decisive for shareholders
A High Court judgment has confirmed that an activist investor brought regulatory litigation as leverage to acquire a competitor's management business, with the finding now at the centre of a separate proxy battle over a property fund.
In CNP Holdings Ltd v Central Park Property Investment Ltd, the High Court in Auckland determined an application by CNP Holdings Limited – controlled by Craig Priscott, who describes himself as an "activist investor" – to stay an earlier order granting a third party access to court documents from a struck-out proceeding.
The underlying proceeding, which was struck out in 2024, concerned the failed "Nido" development in Henderson, Auckland. Central Park Property Investment Limited had raised capital from retail investors who suffered losses. Maat Consulting Limited managed the entities that raised that capital. CNP alleged that the defendants breached various obligations under the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 in respect of the last of four capital raises by Central Park. Notably, none of the retail investors who lost money were parties to the proceeding.
In that earlier strike-out judgment, the court found that correspondence and documents exchanged between September 2022 and March 2023 supported an inference that CNP commenced the proceeding for the collateral purpose of furthering Mr Priscott's goal of acquiring Maat's business interests in managing 11 property syndicates, either by pressuring Maat to resume negotiations for CNP's acquisition of Maat's business interests, or by forcing Maat out of business as the manager of the property syndicates to open the way for CNP to acquire those interests. The court ruled this collateral purpose was the predominant purpose and struck out the proceeding.
The legal fallout extended further. In August 2025, Priscott incorporated ProvCo Investments Limited and, between September and December 2025, wrote a series of letters to shareholders of Provincial Property Fund Limited (PPFL) – a separate property fund with a portfolio of 15 industrial properties valued at approximately $115 million. Priscott alleged problems with PPFL's governance, management and financial performance, and offered to buy shares at 90 cents each. By 1 December 2025, ProvCo had acquired 16 percent of PPFL and became its largest shareholder. ProvCo then formally requested a special meeting of shareholders to consider resolutions to remove the existing directors of PPFL, to appoint a new independent director chosen by ProvCo, and to appoint an independent sub-committee to review management arrangements. According to Mr Burling, Priscott's nominee for the new independent director role was John Murray.
PPFL chief executive Carl Burling sought access to the documents from the struck-out proceeding to evaluate the veracity of Priscott's statements to PPFL shareholders about his dealings with Maat and his reasons for bringing the claim. The court granted access.
CNP appealed and sought a stay. Justice Gardiner granted a partial stay, blocking access to evidence and any parts of submissions and pleadings concerning earlier transactions involving Mr Priscott unrelated to the Nido development, which the judge in the original strike-out proceeding had explicitly disregarded. For the remaining documents, Justice Gardiner dismissed the stay application, leaving the original access order intact. Those documents included evidence about Priscott's dealings with Maat and three complaints Priscott had lodged with the Financial Markets Authority about Maat, all of which the FMA found had no merit.
