Fish deal partner sues for $15m

By PAUL PANCKHURST

Claims of deception and false accounting in a joint fishing venture are behind a $15 million legal claim from Japan's Maruha Corporation against its former partner, New Zealand's Amaltal Corporation.

Many of the details in the case brought by Maruha and another company, Maruha (NZ) Corporation, against Amaltal in January last year are sealed by court order.

But some got an airing in the High Court at Auckland yesterday.

Amaltal says Maruha does not have a case and is seeking to have the claim struck out.

The story starts in 1985 when Maruha and Amaltal set up a joint venture company, Amaltal Taiyo.

One part of the dispute is connected with allegations that during the early days of the joint venture, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries mixed up the hoki quota it was issuing separately to Amaltal Taiyo and Amaltal.

Maruha claims MAF allocated 3000 tonnes to Amaltal Taiyo and 7000 tonnes to Amaltal, despite intending the reverse.

In written submissions, the company's lawyer, Julian Miles, QC, told Justice Rodney Hansen that Amaltal deliberately concealed MAF's error from Maruha.

The Maruha side claims this led to extra costs for the joint venture company and benefits for Amaltal.



Maruha's evidence includes affidavits from Michael Scheffer, who is described as a former director of Amaltal and Amaltal Taiyo and author of the two letters to MAF applying for quota.

Maruha claims Scheffer raised MAF's error with Peter Talley, who was a director of Amaltal and a shareholder of Talley's Fisheries, a 50 per cent shareholder in Amaltal.

Talley allegedly confirmed the mistake, said it would be corrected and told Scheffer to stay out of the matter.

Maruha learned of the alleged mistake from Scheffer in 2000, nine years after an agreement to dissolve the joint venture.

Amaltal denies Scheffer's account and this version of events as a whole.

One allegation in court documents is that Scheffer was motivated by malice after losing a lawsuit against Amalgamated Marketing, which owns the other half of Amaltal.

Miles said the evidence of the parties was "totally at odds" on whether Amaltal Taiyo intended to apply for 3000 tonnes or 7000 tonnes and whether Amaltal believed MAF had made an error.



Mahura also claims that two sets of accounts were prepared by Amaltal for Amaltal Taiyo between 1987 and 1991.



Different versions were shown to Maruha and the Inland Revenue Department.

Miles said that it was not until 2000 that Maruha became aware that Amaltal had retained $5.6 million of tax savings belonging to the joint venture company.

Amaltal denies that claim.

The case continues today.