Judge appoints liquidators upon finding Rangiora-based group insolvent
The New Zealand High Court has issued an order placing the parent company of the Chance Voight group and five of its key subsidiaries into liquidation upon finding that the Rangiora-based group was insolvent and running an unsustainable business model.
The Financial Markets Authority (FMA) had serious concerns regarding the solvency of the six Chance Voight companies, the defendants in Financial Markets Authority v Chance Voight Investment Corporation Ltd (in interim liquidation) [2026] NZHC 2113.
“Our primary goal in bringing the liquidation proceeding was to ensure the preservation of investor funds to the extent possible,” said Margot Gatland, the FMA’s head of enforcement, in a media release. “The Court’s judgment confirms the FMA’s concerns about the management of these companies.”
On 9 December 2025, the High Court placed the six defendant companies into interim liquidation, primarily based on the evidence available to the FMA at the time, most significantly the defendants’ apparent dependence on issuing new debt securities to raise cash to comply with redemption and interest payment obligations on existing debt securities.
The interim liquidators reviewed the Chance Voight group, which began operations in 2021 and whose founder also served as its chief executive officer and its current sole director.
The interim liquidators, who were three licensed insolvency practitioners, found the group materially insolvent in terms of cash flow and its balance sheet.
Under part 16 of the Companies Act 1993 and part 31 of the High Court Rules 2016, the FMA applied for the six companies’ liquidation.
As requested, the High Court placed all six defendant companies in liquidation. The interim liquidators consented to their appointments as the defendants’ liquidators.
The court determined that the substantive application for winding up would probably succeed. The court reserved costs.
Apart from the second defendant, Chance Voight Investment Partners Limited (CVIPL), the High Court saw overwhelming evidence of the five other defendants’ insolvency.
The court explained that the group of companies operated an unsustainable business model, which depended on finding new investors to pay out existing investors’ capital and interest. The court did not consider the CEO’s “blind optimism” a justification for the scheme to continue.
The court held that further investors would add debt, rather than turning around the group’s financial position, as reported by the interim liquidators. The court added that continued trading would incur significant expenses, substantially funded by contributor funds.
As a basis for liquidating CVIPL, the High Court of New Zealand cited s 241(4)(b) of the Companies Act, which permitted the court to appoint a liquidator if a company or board persistently or seriously failed to comply with the legislation.
The FMA alleged that using the “ultimate sanction” in s 241(4)(b) would be proportionate to the apparent total indifference of the group, its CEO, and CVICL’s board to their obligations to keep the proper accounting records and to prepare the financial statements required by ss 194 and 202 of the Companies Act.
Regarding CVIPL, Gatland said, “The remaining company was a holding company that did not trade and was wound up on the basis of a justifiable lack of confidence in its management.”
Enjoy this story? Read the latest restructuring and insolvency law news on the main page!
