Tag:

weiti

Business

Weiti Project Developer Owes Creditors $73M, Liquidators Report

by Chief Editor
written by Chief Editor

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.

Did you know?
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.

Why Did the Court Find Against Green & McCahill Holdings?

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.

What Happens to the Remaining Land?

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.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Business

Failed Weiti Bay Project: Land to be Sold to Recover $67M Debt

by Chief Editor
written by Chief Editor

The Weiti Bay housing project, a 909-hectare coastal development north of Auckland, remains stalled in a high-stakes legal battle as creditors seek to recover more than $67 million in debt. Following a May Court of Appeal ruling, control of the land is now subject to an expressions-of-interest process managed by administrators, as warring parties contest the site’s future development and financial liability.

How did a major housing development end up in court?

The conflict stems from a partnership between the Liu family’s Green McCahill Holdings Ltd (GMHL) and developer Evan Williams’ Ara Weiti Investments Ltd (AWIL), which began in 2012. According to High Court judgments, the relationship soured when sales at the gated 150-lot community failed to meet projections, leaving loans unpaid. Justice Andrew Becroft noted in a September judgment that the Liu family’s refusal to release land titles—a strategy described as “playing chicken”—effectively halted revenue and jeopardized the project’s solvency.

How did a major housing development end up in court?

What is the current status of the Weiti Bay land?

The land is currently under the control of administrators from Teneo, who took over the sale process in June. This move replaced a previously scheduled High Court-ordered auction. According to John Fisk, a senior managing director at Teneo, the shift to an expressions-of-interest process aims to benefit a broader group of creditors, which reportedly includes seven or eight parties. This follows a period where Williams’ company, AWIL, held a significant advantage, as the court previously allowed it to bid for the land by offsetting its own $67 million-plus debt against the purchase price.

7 Taemai Place, Weiti Bay
Did you know?

The Weiti Bay site spans 909 hectares, making it larger than the Auckland suburbs of Devonport and Bayswater combined. Its proximity to a sensitive marine reserve has previously drawn public protest, including demonstrations outside Te Papa while Evan Williams served as the museum’s chairman.

Why are the financial stakes so high?

The project’s debt has ballooned due to high-interest rates and compounding costs. Justice Sarah Katz reported in May that debt owed to AWIL rose from $20 million in 2020 to over $67 million, growing by more than $1 million each month at a 21% compounding interest rate. These costs have impacted prominent figures, including philanthropist Sir Mark Dunajtschik, whose company, Lambton Quay, lent over $40 million to the project. Sir Mark testified in the High Court that the investment was among the “worst commercial decisions” of his life.

Comparison: The “Playing Chicken” Strategy

Party Stated Strategy Court Finding
Liu Family (GMHL) Refusing to release titles unless paid first. “Effectively tanked the development” (Justice Becroft).
Evan Williams (AWIL) Buying debt to gain leverage. Credible and reliable witness (Justice Becroft).

What happens if the land is sold to a third party?

If an outside buyer secures the land, the development faces potential deadlock. Because the mortgaged parcels are surrounded by property still controlled by the Liu family, any new owner would require the family’s cooperation to access and develop the site. AWIL remains a key player, as its survival depends on either acquiring the land to finish the project or recovering its debt. The Liu family continues to contest the High Court’s rulings through an active appeal in the Court of Appeal.

Comparison: The "Playing Chicken" Strategy
Pro Tip:

When monitoring complex property litigation, look for the distinction between “mortgagee sales” and “voluntary administration.” One prioritizes specific debt recovery, while the other seeks to balance the interests of all creditors, often changing the timeline for potential investors.

Frequently Asked Questions

  • Who is currently managing the sale of the Weiti Bay land?
    Administrators from Teneo are managing the sale through an expressions-of-interest process.
  • Why did the Liu family refuse to release land titles?
    The family sought to prevent lenders from selling the land cheaply, hoping to force a renegotiation or push the developer out of the project.
  • What is the total debt involved in this dispute?
    As of the May ruling, the debt owed to AWIL alone had exceeded $67 million.
  • Is the project still facing legal challenges?
    Yes, the Liu family has an appeal lodged with the Court of Appeal contesting previous High Court judgments.

Are you following the development of Auckland’s coastal land? Subscribe to our newsletter for updates on this case and other major property sector news.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail