Waikato studmaster and horse trainer Brent Gillovic appointed Kelera Nayacakalou liquidator of two companies he controlled which were in dispute with Inland Revenue believing she would be a ‘friendly liquidator.’ Nine years later, it took a High Court order to remove her with liquidation stalled and a dispute over fees owed.
Within weeks of the court hearing, Ms Nayacakalou’s licence to practice as an insolvency practitioner was cancelled by the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants.
The High Court was presented with a confused picture of what had, or had not, been done in relation to liquidation of Mr Gillovic’s companies: Tesio Bloodstock Services Ltd and Tesio Throughbred Services Ltd.
The court was told that at time of her appointment in 2015, Mr Gillovic disputed default assessments issued against his companies by Inland Revenue. On liquidation, Inland Revenue lodged claims of some $60,500 against Tesio Bloodstock and about $38,900 against Tesio Thoroughbred.
Mr Gillovic said these claims were later withdrawn.
He objected to Ms Nayacakalou then going full-steam ahead, selling shares in a private company part-owned by Tesio Bloodstock for $2000, ignoring pre-emption provisions requiring this private company shareholding to be first offered for sale to existing shareholders.
He was also angered by Ms Nayacakalou suing to recover loans by the companies to him. The extent of any loans was disputed.
Statutory six-monthly reporting to the Companies Office on her actions as liquidator made no reference to this detail.
With Ms Nayacakalou claiming unpaid fees of $80,800, Mr Gillovic said the agreed deal was that her fees would not exceed $3500 for each company. He said the fees claimed were ‘exorbitant, unsupportable and unreasonable.’
Associate Judge Sussock removed Ms Nayacakalou as liquidator of the two Tesio companies, on grounds she had failed to carry out her duties in a proper and timely manner.
She was entitled to no more than $3500 in payment of liquidation fees for each company, Judge Sussock further ruled. Regardless of whether there was a fee agreement fixing payment, limited record keeping by Ms Nayacakalou justified no higher payment, Judge Sussock said.
Ms Nayacakalou did not appear in court. She claimed to have received insufficient notice of the court hearing date.
Gillovic v. Nayacakalou – High Court (2.09.24)
24.217