National claim a leaked Labour tax policy, police take to the sky in the search for missing real estate agent and global boiling is here as the earth’s temperatures soar. Video / NZ Herald / AP
A man who invested $10 million in a Wānaka hotel has gone to court to find out where his money went.
Kurt Bradley Wagner’s case was heard in the High Court at Invercargill this week after information concerning his funds was withheld from him for four months.
In February last year, B Property Group Ltd sole director Andrew McIntosh offered Wagner an investment opportunity involving the Kitea Hotel in Brownston St.
The plaintiff entered a subscription agreement with the company and after a $10 million investment, Wagner became a 50 per cent shareholder in the company.
Following a visit to New Zealand in December, he was concerned about the lack of apparent progress on the hotel.
The proposed multimillion-dollar hotel in Brownston St. Image / Supplied
This led to anxieties over how the funds he contributed had been applied, and so on March 16 he requested information under the Companies Act.
He asked the company for access to many documents, including the past financial year’s report, the hotel’s business plan and any other document that showed how his investment had been used.
Five days later, McIntosh said the information would be provided, but did not give a timeframe.
On April 18, the company confirmed it had counsel engaged in the matter, who confirmed they would provide the requested documents “early next week”.
The standard timeframe under the act is 10 working days.
More than a month had passed and no update was provided to Wagner.
On May 5, a court proceeding was served on the company.
The company opposed parts of the request because it “lacked specificity”, but it agreed to provide some information.
The limited data Wagner received raised further concerns for him, including that his funds had been advanced to unknown third parties.
Justice Rachel Dunningham said at the hearing this week “there was still no explanation for why the request for information had not been complied with”.
She found the company did not have good reason to oppose the application and ordered all requested information be provided to Wagner within 10 days.
“I am also sympathetic to the applicant’s concern ... that the funds he has invested appear to have been advanced to third parties without his knowledge.”
A further hearing concerning legal costs will be scheduled.
