Green & McCahill Holdings, the company behind the sprawling Weiti Bay development north of Auckland, has entered liquidation following a protracted legal dispute and insolvency. According to liquidators Fisk and Bennett, the company’s collapse was driven by a failed subdivision project, an adverse High Court judgment, and subsequent creditor enforcement actions involving more than $67 million in debt.
How Did the Weiti Bay Development Collapse?
Incorporated in 1956, Green & McCahill Holdings originally served as a holding company for a significant coastal block of land. According to a report by liquidators Fisk and Bennett, the firm entered into a development agreement with third parties in 2011, leveraging debt funding secured by mortgages over the property. While the first phase—a 150-lot subdivision—successfully became a functioning, privately-owned community, the project stalled thereafter.
The venture descended into what court documents described as a toxic legal battle, featuring allegations of “sham” land sales and “malevolent” intent. By 2019, a mortgagee sale of part of the land failed to yield enough capital to cover outstanding debts. Subsequent High Court proceedings initiated by the company to challenge that sale were dismissed, with the court instead ruling in favor of a counterclaim, leading to significant cost awards against the developer.
The High Court at Auckland issued a 315-page decision regarding the dispute, which was finalized across several filings in September and October of last year.
Why Did the Court Find Against Green & McCahill Holdings?
In the High Court proceedings, Justice Andrew Becroft presided over the dispute between the landowner and parties including Evan Christopher Williams and Ara Weiti Development. The plaintiff, Green & McCahill Holdings, argued it suffered massive losses due to a botched development and an unfair mortgagee sale.
Justice Becroft rejected the company’s claims, explicitly favoring the testimony of Evan Christopher Williams. According to the court’s decision, Williams recounted a conversation with company director Tung-kuang Liu, who allegedly asked, “How will you feel and what would your family feel when you go bankrupt without my support?” Justice Becroft characterized Liu’s evidence as “neither reliable nor credible,” while concluding that Williams was a reliable witness.
What Happens to the Remaining Land?
The company’s primary asset remains its roughly 740-hectare undeveloped coastal block. Liquidators note that the book value of this land in company accounts does not necessarily reflect its actual realizable value. Following a June 8 meeting of creditors, administrators Boris van Delden and Keaton Pronk were removed, and Fisk and Bennett were appointed as joint and several administrators. Creditors voted to move to full liquidation on June 30.
The list of creditors includes a complex mix of entities and individuals, such as the Liu family, Baroque Overseas, Clearwater Capital Partners, and Evan Christopher Williams. With the project facing over $67 million in debt, the liquidators are currently tracing the movement of funds and assessing the potential recovery from the remaining land assets.
Pro Tips: Understanding Property Liquidation
- Verify Asset Values: Never rely on “book value” in a developer’s accounts; look for independent appraisals during insolvency.
- Monitor Court Records: Major development projects often have public court filings that provide more transparency than private corporate reports.
- Check Creditor Status: In complex developments, secured creditors often take priority, leaving little for unsecured parties after a mortgagee sale.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who are the liquidators for Green & McCahill Holdings?
Fisk and Bennett were appointed as joint and several administrators following a creditors’ vote on June 30.
Is the completed Weiti Bay subdivision affected?
No. The 150-lot subdivision completed during the project’s first stage is a privately-owned community and is not part of the current court proceedings or liquidation.
What was the main cause of the company’s insolvency?
According to the liquidators’ report, the insolvency was caused by a combination of a negative litigation outcome, substantial judgment debts, interest, and limited available funds to satisfy creditor claims.
Stay informed on the latest corporate insolvencies and property market shifts. Subscribe to our weekly business newsletter for essential updates delivered directly to your inbox.
