Ross' liquidators mull cross-appeal

David Ross was sentenced in 2013 to 10 years, 10 months' jail for an elaborate Ponzi scheme spanning 12 years in which an estimated $115.5 million of investments was lost. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Ross Asset Management's liquidators are considering a cross-appeal after getting back less than half of the $954,000 they were seeking from an investor who was paid out before the company collapsed.

This comes as the investor, Wellington lawyer Hamish McIntosh, has launched his own appeal at having to pay the liquidators $454,000 of "fictitious profits".

His appeal affects more than just the investor and could decide whether or not liquidators target 193 other investors who also got $30 million of "fictitious profits" from Ross.

Described by Justice Alan Mackenzie last month as an "innocent investor", McIntosh borrowed $500,000 from Westpac to put into the fraudster's business in 2007.

His investment had purportedly grown to $954,000 when he closed his portfolio four and a half years later and the liquidators of Ross' since-collapsed business went to the High Court at Wellington in March to recover the funds.

While Justice Mackenzie ruled McIntosh had a defence to the liquidators' claim for the $500,000 original investment, the Wellingtonian was yesterday ordered to pay back the $454,000 of "fictitious profits".

As a defence to the claim, McIntosh had argued that his position had changed and he had embarked on a residential property development since receiving the payment.

There was no suggestion McIntosh had any reason to suspect when he got the money back in 2011 that Ross was running a Ponzi scheme.

But the judge said by the time McIntosh had entered into the building contract in July 2013 he was well aware the profit paid to him was fictitious.

Ross Asset Management collapsed in November 2012, around the time it was raided by the Financial Markets Authority.

It was later revealed Ross was running a Ponzi scheme and he was jailed for 10 years and 10 months.

"I do not consider that, following the first public revelation of RAM's position, a reasonable person in the respondent's position could have held a reasonable belief that the payments were valid and would not be set aside," Justice Mackenzie said.

McIntosh is appealing the High Court's decision.

One of RAM's liquidators, John Fisk, said this morning they were considering whether or not to cross-appeal on their failed bid to also get the $500,000 of original investment.