05 August 2016

Ponzi Scheme: Priest v. Ross Asset Management

Former Forsyth Barr sharebroker Duncan Priest extracted out of Ross Asset Management’s liquidation nearly seven million listed company shares representing holdings in fifteen different companies, reducing further the paltry three cents in the dollar defrauded investors were expecting to receive out of the Ponzi scheme operated by now-convicted fraudster David Ross.
While at Forsyth Barr, Mr Priest channelled personal transactions through Ross Asset Management disguising his own trading and his family shareholdings by having Ross Asset hold shares as a bare trustee on his behalf.
Ross conned investors with promises to generate high returns on their behalf.  While investors received regular investment updates signalling healthy growth in their portfolios, these reports were works of fiction.  Client money was stolen.  When the Ponzi scheme collapsed, investigating accountants found Ross Asset held assets totalling only $10.2 million, including some $59,000 in cash, with investors reported portfolios supposedly valued at $449.6 million.  They are left as unsecured creditors of Ross Asset.
Mr Priest told the High Court he was not a Ross Asset client.  He did not leave money with Ross for discretionary investment.  He made his own investment decisions.  His buy and sell orders were actioned through Ross Asset and purchases were held by Ross Asset on trust for him and his family. 
Evidence was given of Mr Priest getting wind of troubles at Ross Management just weeks before it went into receivership and then liquidation.  He tracked Ross down and had him sign share transfer documents which took 5.5 million shares held in four companies out of Ross Asset control across to an independent custodial trustee.  Mr Priest described these shares as being the most valuable and readily transferable of his share portfolio held by Ross Asset.  Their value was not disclosed by Justice Clifford.
The High Court was asked to rule on ownership of the 5.5 million shares transferred out prior to liquidation together with a further 1.2 million shares held in eleven different companies still recorded in Ross Asset’s books as being held on behalf of Mr Priest and his family.         
Justice Clifford ruled the Priests’ shares were held by Ross Asset as bare trustee.  It held legal title, but Mr Priest and his family were the true owners.  Mr Priest had paid for the specific shares in question.  He was entitled to keep ownership of those shares transferred to another custodial trustee prior to liquidation and was also entitled to recover legal title to the 1.2 million shares still held by Ross Asset.  The court was told Ross left untouched shares he held on behalf of Mr Priest, with one exception; between July 2011 and May 2012, Ross sold about $500,000 worth of Diligent Board Member Services shares without Mr Priest’s authority and without accounting for the proceeds.  Mr Priest stands as an unsecured creditor for this loss.
Priest v. Ross Asset Management – High Court (5.08.16)

16.120