30 April 2015

Fair Trading: Swindle v. Withers

Financiers of the Matakana and Goldridge wine companies were held partly responsible for their own losses of over $2.62 million after the companies went under when the High Court held them fifty per cent to blame in legal action against chartered accountant Mark Withers who had accepted responsibility for overseeing disbursement of loan monies.
The High Court was told US investors provided working capital to the Vegar family’s wine business for some eight years before the businesses closed down in late 2010.  Paul Vegar filed for bankruptcy while Peter and Jean Vegar put a debt compromise to creditors.
Working capital for Matakana’s and Goldridge’s wine business and property developments was funelled through GTF Capital Ltd, an investment bank.  Loans were on a “non-recourse” basis with repayment due after each year’s vintage had matured and been sold.  It was important to GTF that funds advanced each year were applied only to the processing and bottling of that year’s harvest as it had recourse only to that year’s  production for repayment of the year’s advances.
Evidence was given that in March 2008 and again in 2009 Mr Withers signed a letter to GTF stating that he was joint signatory of the relevant funding account and he undertook that the account would be used solely to meet costs of processing the 2008 and later the 2009 harvests.  Mr Withers and his firm Withers Tsang and Co Ltd were primarily responsible for tax work on behalf of the Vegar family.  He was not a signatory to the funding account, members of the Vegar family were.  The court was told funds were rapidly shifted out of the funding accounts and used elsewhere. 
Justice Peters ruled the signed letters amounted to an express statement by Mr Withers that he would oversee how the funds would be applied.  His failure to in fact oversee the disbursement of this working capital was a breach of the Fair Trading Act.  The financiers had been misled or deceived.  Money had been released from the funding accounts which would otherwise be available for repayment to them.
The financiers lost $2.62 million plus accrued interest, but Justice Peters ruled that Mr Withers was liable for only half this loss.  Financial statements provided to the financiers should have put them on enquiry.  They described loan advances being made to related parties, loans which should never exist if the funding was being used as prescribed to pay processing costs.  Also, the financiers did not act quickly when becoming aware the wine company was in financial difficulty.  Nine months prior to default, GTF was told by either Peter or Paul Vegar that liquidity was tight, Justice Peters said.  Then it was another 14 months after a payment due was missed before the financiers appointed a receiver.  They must bear some of the consequences of this delay, Her Honour said.  There was evidence that Matakana and Goldwater had traded at losses in excess of five million dollars over the period 2001-2008.
Mr Withers was ordered to pay damages of $1.31 million plus interest on this half share.  He held professional indemnity insurance with Zurich Australian Insurance.  Justice Peters ruled Zurich was liable for this amount.  
Swindle v. Withers – High Court (30.4.15)
15.040