Litigation is an expensive way to settle family arguments over money. The High Court recommended that Whangarei “Lion Man”, Craig Busch, try mediation in a financial dispute with his mother.
Their dispute followed over $1.7 million in financing provided by Mrs Busch in July 2006 to rescue her son’s wildlife park at Kamo, near Whangarei. The court was told that Craig Busch had been under extreme emotional and financial pressure culminating in a charge of assault against his former partner and a falling out with his business partner at the wildlife park.
His mother’s $1.7 million loan was used to refinance business operations. As security, Mrs Busch was given control of the business with Craig Busch entitled to resume control once the debt was repaid.
One potential source of repayment was revenue from film and television rights over future wildlife programmes – Craig Busch having earned his reputation as the “Lion Man” on the basis of earlier media exposure. However, future film rights required use of business assets now under his mother’s control. The earlier financing agreement was extended with a supplementary agreement in 2007 to cover filming rights: copyright and intellectual property rights.
The 2007 agreement stated that filming rights remained with the business under Mrs Busch’s control, but the approval of Craig Busch was required should the business enter into joint ventures for the production or distribution of filmed material. This was designed to protect Craig Busch’s position. The 2007 agreement provided that two-thirds of the net income from film productions would go in reduction of the money owed Mrs Busch, and the remaining one-third was payable to Craig Busch as a “bonus”. Any joint venture arrangement would have the effect of reducing the pot to be divided two-thirds:one-third.
Craig Busch went to court after learning that a joint venture company had been set up, without his approval, for a future series of The Lion Man. He asked the High Court for orders removing his mother from overall control and the appointment of independent directors. The Court was not willing to remove Mrs Busch from control without there first being an extended court hearing with full evidence. She had provided a substantial sum in emergency financial aid to rescue the business and was entitled to remain in control as protection for her investment until the case could be fully argued.
Justice Heath went on to suggest continuing the litigation was not the best course of action. He said there were three ways out of the impasse: first for Mrs Busch to buy out her son’s remaining shareholding in the business and to assume complete control; second, for Craig Busch to refinance the business and buy out his mother; and third, for the business to be sold as a going concern to a third party. The value of the business would be dependent on Craig Busch being willing to participate in any film ventures.
Busch v. Zion
01.09.003