NZLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of New Zealand Decisions
You are here:  NZLII >> Databases >> High Court of New Zealand Decisions >> 2021 >> [2021] NZHC 1113

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Halifax New Zealand Limited (in liquidation) v Loo [2021] NZHC 1113 (19 May 2021)

Last Updated: 19 May 2021


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
COMMERCIAL PANEL
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2019-404-002049
[2021] NZHC 1113
UNDER
Section 284 of the Companies Act 1993, section 66 of the Trustee Act 1956 and Part 19 of the High Court Rules 2016
IN THE MATTER
of HALIFAX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
AND
an application by MORGAN JOHN KELLY and PHILIP ALEXANDER QUINLAN
First Applicants
.../2
Hearing:
30 November, 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 December 2020
Appearances:
A Leopold SC,* E Holmes,* C Trahanas,* M Kersey and S J Jones for Applicants
E Hyde* for First Respondent
J V Gooley* for Second Respondent
V Whittaker SC* and C Mitchel* for Third Respondent R Scruby SC* and K Petch* for Fourth Respondent
S D Munro and C M O’Brien for Fifth Respondent E L Smith for Sixth and Seventh Respondents
No appearance for Eighth and Ninth Respondents
*(appearing remotely from Federal Court)
Judgment:
19 May 2021


JUDGMENT OF VENNING J


This judgment was delivered by me on 19 May 2021 at 11.00 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date...............




HALIFAX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (IN LIQ) v LOO & ORS [2021] NZHC 1113 [19 May 2021]

an application by HALIFAX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
Second Applicant

MORGAN JOHN KELLY and PHILIP ALEXANDER QUINLAN
Third Applicants

an application by HALIFAX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
Second Applicant

MORGAN JOHN KELLY and PHILIP ALEXANDER QUINLAN
Third Applicants

AND CHOO BOON LOO
First Respondent

ELYSIUM BUSINESS SYSTEMS PTY LTD
Second Respondent

JASON PAUL HINGSTON
Third Respondent

ATLAS ASSET MANAGEMENT PTY
LTD (as trustee for the Atlas Asset Management Trust)
Fourth Respondent

FIONA McMULLIN
Fifth Respondent

ANDREW PHILLIP WHITEHEAD and
MARLENE WHITEHEAD (as trustees for the Beeline Trust)
Sixth Respondent

ANDREW PHILLIP WHITEHEAD
Seventh Respondent

JEFFREY JOHN WORBOYS
Eighth Respondent

HONG KONG CAPITAL HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED (HKCH)
Ninth Respondent

Introduction [1]

Procedural matters [7]
Background [10]
Halifax entities/shareholding and control [10]
Representative parties and other respondents [13]
Choo Boon Loo [14]
Elysium Business Systems Pty Ltd [15]
Jason Paul Hingston [16]
Atlas Asset Management Pty Ltd [17]
Fiona McMullin [18]
Whitehead Interests [20]

Jeffrey John Worboys and Hong Kong Capital Holdings Pty Limited, [21] The operations of Halifax AU and Halifax NZ [25]

The trading platforms [31]

Closing out – operation of investments [38]
The relationships: Halifax NZ and its Clients [39]
The relationships: Halifax NZ and IB [44]
The relationships: Halifax AU and Halifax NZ [51]
The Trust relationship [54]
A single deficient mixed fund [64]
The Whitehead Interests’ case [92]
Category 3 investors [122]
Category 5 investors [150]
Category 1/Category 2 investors [176]
Barry Taylor and DM3 [183]
Discussion [214]

Remaining issues [236]

Post appointment deposits [236]
Set-off [237[
Low/minimal balances [240]
Currency [243]

Final orders [244]

Category 3 investors [244]
Category 5 investors [244]
Post-appointment deposits [244]
Date of calculation of value of clients’ entitlements [244]
Pooling and distribution [244]
Distribution process [244]
Set-off [244]
Low account balances [244]
Electronic communications [244]

Reservation of leave [245]

Costs [246]

Introduction



1 Companies Act 1999, s 241(2)(a).

2 On 9 May 2019 Mr McCallum resigned from his position of liquidator.

3 Reg 246(2) of the Financial Markets Conduct Regulations 2014 (FMCR).

  1. The applicants were variously referred to during the proceedings as applicants, liquidators and trustees. The same terminology applies throughout this judgment.

Procedural matters

Background

Halifax entities/shareholding and control


  1. Kelly, in the matter of Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 5) [2019] FCA 1341, [2019] 139 ACSR 56 [Kelly No 5]; and High Court Minute No (4) dated 12 December 2019 [Minute No 4].

6 Until 9 October 2013, Halifax NZ was called Strategic Capital Management Limited.

  1. Previously, on 1 July 2013, Halifax AU and Halifax NZ had entered an introducer agreement pursuant to which Halifax NZ (Strategic Capital Management Ltd as it was then known) would introduce clients to Halifax AU.

Representative parties and other respondents

Choo Boon Loo

Elysium Business Systems Pty Ltd

Jason Paul Hingston

Atlas Asset Management Pty Ltd

Fiona McMullin

Whitehead Interests

Jeffrey John Worboys and Hong Kong Capital Holdings Pty Limited,

application of the liquidators.8 The eighth and ninth respondents had previously been joined to the Federal Court proceedings on their application to argue, inter alia, that the assets of Halifax AU which were acquired in connection with the trading of financial products by clients of Halifax AU, were beneficially owned by Halifax AU and were neither acquired by clients of Halifax AU nor held on trust for clients of Halifax AU.







8 Interlocutory Order dated 21 October 2020.

The operations of Halifax AU and Halifax NZ9

(a) the Interactive Brokers LLC (IB) trading platform also known as Trader Workstation (referred to as IB AU);

(b) its MetaTrader 4 (MT4) trading platform licence from MetaQuotes Software Corp (MetaQuotes) and also known as Halifax Pro;

(c) from at least around 2009 to around July/August 2016, the Saxo trading platform (Saxo); and

(d) from around 8 August 2016, its MetaTrader (MT5) trading platform also licensed from MetaQuotes and known as Halifax Plus.

  1. The summary at [25] to [37] is taken from the Agreed Statement of Facts dated 3 November 2020 and admitted pursuant to s 9, Evidence Act 2006.
to Halifax AU. On 1 July 2013, four months before Halifax AU acquired the controlling share in Halifax NZ, the parties entered an introducing broker/referral agreement pursuant to which Halifax NZ agreed to introduce clients to Halifax AU and refer them to Halifax AU’s financial services business. As such, Halifax NZ introduced prospective clients to Halifax AU for the purpose of financial products trading.

(a) providing access for its clients and for clients of Halifax AU to the IB trading platform (which was referred to as IB NZ);

(b) facilitating access for its clients to Halifax AU’s IB AU platform;

(c) facilitating access for its clients to Halifax AU’s MT4 platform; and

(d) facilitating access for its clients to Halifax AU’s MT5 platform.

(a) exchange traded financial products, namely investments traded on a regulated exchange, such as the Australian Stock Exchange, New York Stock Exchange, or London Stock Exchange (including shares, warrants, futures and options); or

(b) over the counter (OTC) financial products comprising derivatives which were not listed on a regulated stock exchange but which were traded via private contracts between the client and either Halifax AU or Halifax NZ, the value of which contracts were based on the price of assets such as shares, precious metals and commodities.

The trading platforms

Closing out – operation of investments

The relationships: Halifax NZ and its clients

  1. Appointment
  1. The Client appoints Halifax NZ as its agent to:
  1. enter into the Transactions on behalf of the Client;
  1. do all things reasonably necessary to perform the Transactions; and
  1. do all things reasonably incidental to the performance of the Transactions.

... means trading in the Financial Products described in the Client Details Form and such other Financial Products as may be agreed ... from time to time.

...

6 Trusts and Segregated Accounts

...

  1. All money and property deposited by the Client with Halifax NZ, or received by Halifax NZ on behalf of the Client, will, if required by law, be deposited in a trust account or client segregated account by Halifax NZ and held in accordance with applicable legal requirements.
  1. any deposit into a client segregated account does not fully protect the Client’s money and property from the risk of Loss due to a default not caused by the Client.
  1. If the Client’s money and property is placed in a client segregated account, it may be co-mingled with the money and property of other Halifax NZ clients or also with the money and property of other clients of Halifax NZ’s counterparties and agents.

...





10 There are at least two editions of the CSA, one dated 1 May 2015 and the other 8 July 2018. The above clauses are taken from the CSA entered by the Whitehead Interests on 11 April 2016. The later version (8 July 2018) is similarly worded in relevant respects.

1.1 What is this?

This is a product disclosure statement (PDS) for Contracts for Difference (CFD) provided by Halifax New Zealand Limited (Halifax, we, our, us). CFDs are derivatives, which are contracts between you and Halifax that may require you (client) or Halifax to make payment or deliver on the CFDs underlying index, equity, commodity, financial product, or other asset (as the case may be). The value of the contract will depend on the price or value of the underlying index, equity, commodity, financial product, or other asset. The contract specifies the terms on which those payments and deliveries are to be made.

...

2.1 What is a CFD?

A CFD is an agreement between you and Halifax to pay the other the difference arising from movements in the value of an Underlying Product, without either party having to actually own the Underlying Product.

A CFD is an OTC derivative product. This means that CFDs are created and traded off-market between you and Halifax rather than being traded on an exchange, such as a stock exchange or futures exchange.

...

  1. How Halifax treats funds and property received from you

Amounts you pay to us are deposited into the Client Trust Accounts that we maintain. The Client Trust Accounts are held with ANZ Bank New Zealand.

  1. Other versions of the PDS for CFDs and Margin Foreign Exchange and Foreign Exchange Options were issued on 30 June 2016.

This means that client funds (and property) transferred to us through the Trading Platforms are held on trust. Funds we receive are not available to pay any liability of ours, including general creditors in the event of our receivership or liquidation.

Any funds of yours required to meet Margin Requirements, including any fees and charges you incur, will be deducted from the Client Trust Account and paid directly to us.

For money deposited in the Client Trust Account, you should be aware that:

  1. individual client accounts are not separated from each other;
  1. all clients’ funds are co-mingled into the one account; and
  1. the client money provisions may not protect any funds of yours if the Trust

Halifax is entitled to retain all interest earned on the money held in the Client Trust Accounts.

The relationships: Halifax NZ and IB

(a) IB Institutional Services Customer Agreement dated 18 November 2014;

(b) IB Consolidated Account Clearing Agreement dated 25 November 2014;

(c) IB Fully Disclosed Clearing Agreement dated 15 February 2015.




  1. In relation to both the Consolidated Account Clearing Agreement and Fully Disclosed Clearing Agreement.

(a) “WHEREAS, [Halifax NZ] “desires to maintain ... consolidated accounts ... with [IB] through which it will effect transactions in specified investment products on behalf of [Halifax NZ] Customers

...”;

(b) the Consolidated Account would be “carried in the name of [Halifax NZ] and [Halifax NZ] shall effect all transactions to be executed and cleared by [IB] for [Halifax NZ] through the Consolidated Account. [Halifax NZ] shall be solely responsible for all aspects of the acceptance and handling of the individual accounts of the Customers of [Halifax NZ] whose transactions are effected through the Consolidated Account ..., the acceptance and handling of all orders submitted by [Halifax NZ’s] Customers ...”; 13

(c) Halifax NZ “may accept orders of its Customers and submit such orders to [IB], or [Halifax NZ] may provide its Customers with a mechanism to submit such orders themselves electronically directly to [IB];

(d) IB “shall receive and execute orders” and clear executed transactions for [Halifax NZ] through the Consolidated Account;

(e) [Halifax NZ] “shall be solely responsible for maintaining required books and records in connection with all [Halifax NZ] Customer Accounts and transactions contemplated by this Agreement or involving [Halifax NZ] Customers ...”;





13 This was known as the “White Label” agreement.

(f) Halifax NZ acknowledged that a “separate account[s] that may be used to hold any proprietary funds and positions of [Halifax NZ] will not be treated as customer accounts” for certain regulatory purposes; (referred to by witnesses as the IB NZ Prop Account);

(g) IB would “establish Sub-Accounts of the [Halifax NZ] Consolidated Account” (with each Sub-Account to be used for trading of the [Halifax NZ] Customer Account and the single Master Sub-Account to be used to hold any proprietary funds and positions of [Halifax NZ];

(h) IB granted to Halifax NZ a non-exclusive and non-transferrable licence to use IB’s proprietary software to communicate with the Interactive system;

(i) when a customer order was entered into the Interactive system and transmitted for execution (e.g. to an exchanges electronic system) the identity of IB’s customer was anonymous.

The relationships: Halifax AU and Halifax NZ


  1. Local Document Australia and New Zealand dated 8 August 2016 between BNP and IB Australia Pty Ltd and IB Australia Nominees Pty Ltd.

15 Clause 3A(g).

Halifax NZ a fee in respect of the introduced clients in accordance with an agreed schedule.

(a) conducting a daily review of the bank accounts of Halifax AU and Halifax NZ for the purpose of identifying and allocating deposits made by clients;

(b) causing deposited funds to be transferred to the appropriate bank account relating to the specific trading platform used by the client;

(c) causing a client’s account on a relevant trading platform to be credited with an amount reflecting the funds deposited by the client so that the client could commence trading;

(d) actioning redemption requests from clients of Halifax AU or Halifax NZ, meaning requests to transfer funds from accounts held with Halifax NZ or Halifax AU to external accounts nominated by clients;

(e) attending to transfers of funds as requested by Jeff Worboys and Matthew Barnett, the former directors of Halifax AU; and

(f) attending to periodic internal and external reporting requirements.

The Trust relationship

(1) A broker who receives client money or client property, in his, her or its capacity as a broker for a client, –

(a) must hold the client money or client property, or ensure the client money or property is held, on trust for the client; .....


16 Some of the funds held include commission and fees payable to Halifax AU and Halifax NZ and interest earned on funds in client deposit accounts. The client investors’ claims to such money falls outside the directions sought by the applicants in these proceedings.

the course of acting as a derivatives issuer under a licence pursuant to Part 6 of the FMCA. So, money paid to Halifax NZ in its capacity as a derivatives issuer fell outside the scope of the s 77P FAA Trust. Nevertheless, regs 240 to 243 of the FMCR, read with the definition of derivatives investor money in reg 239, have the effect that all money paid to Halifax NZ in the nature of margin payments, all proceeds of the closing out of any such positions and all money deposited but not yet invested were required to be held by Halifax NZ on trust pursuant to reg 240 and were to be paid into a trust account: reg 241. The only exclusions were charges, fees, and other amounts payable as the price for making the investments, together with interest payments.

(a) derivatives investor money, and derivatives investor property (as defined in the FMCR);

(b) money or property held by a hedging counterparty on behalf of the derivatives issuer as a result of the use of derivatives, investor money, or derivatives, investor property in authorising hedging activities; and

(c) any obligations owed by a hedging counterparty to the derivatives issuer that have arisen from the use of derivatives investor money or derivatives investor property.

246 would apply to it also. Accordingly, some of the assets held by Halifax AU would also be held pursuant to the trusts under the provisions of the FMCR.

A single deficient mixed fund

31 July 2020, just under AUD 265 million, the costs of the administration, the liquidation, and the litigation have also increased so that there was a shortfall in client funds as at 31 July 2020 of just over AUD 53 million.


17 Outline of liquidators’/trustees’ submissions at 44.

with five merchant providers and at least six accounts with IB. Halifax NZ had funds in eight bank accounts and held a further six IB accounts.

(a) Clients who invested on the IB NZ Platform deposited money into the ANZ Halifax NZ account (which was expressly designated as a trust account) or into a range of ANZ foreign currency accounts (in the name of Halifax NZ – again expressly designated as trust accounts). The deposits into the ANZ Halifax NZ account were in NZD and the deposits with the latter accounts were made in a range of foreign currencies. The ANZ foreign currency accounts were not commonly used. Where IB NZ clients wished to make deposits in foreign currencies, they were encouraged to make their deposits into one of the NAB foreign currency accounts operated by Halifax AU.




18 A flow chart showing the flows of money in general terms is attached marked ‘A’.

(b) IB NZ clients were also able to deposit funds into the IB Suspense Account, the Merchant Account, the Halifax Pro-Suspense Account and were encouraged to use the NAB foreign currency accounts.

(c) MT4 and MT5 clients who signed a CSA with Halifax NZ deposited funds into either the Halifax Pro-Suspense Account, the Merchant Account, or into a NAB foreign currency account. In some instances, clients on the MT4 or MT5 Platforms also deposited money into the IB Suspense Account or directly into the ANZ Halifax NZ account.

(d) In order for the client account to be credited there needed to be sufficient funds deposited by Halifax NZ in one of the IB named bank accounts and recorded in the IB NZ master account. To achieve this Halifax NZ, like Halifax AU, maintained a surplus “buffer” of funds with IB. This enabled Halifax NZ to credit client accounts on the IB Platform immediately on receipt of the deposit rather than waiting 24 to 48 hours for a transfer from Halifax NZ to IB to appear in the relevant account as cleared funds. To achieve this, funds were regularly transferred from the ANZ Halifax NZ account to IB as required to maintain the buffer.

(e) An examination of the Halifax NZ business records (which Mr Kelly has reviewed and approved) also discloses that some payments were made for the benefit of Halifax NZ rather than for the benefit of its clients. In the case of Halifax NZ, for instance, legal fees were paid from the ANZ Halifax NZ account. However, most such unauthorised payments made in that way were for the benefit of Halifax AU.

(f) Some payments were made to clients at their request.

(g) There were also some transfers to Invast and Gain for the purpose of hedging foreign currency and other derivative transactions entered into between the clients and Halifax NZ on the MT4 and MT5 platforms. This occurred automatically by way of a bridge.

(h) There were also transfers to HSBC foreign currency accounts in the name of IB to ensure foreign currency held by IB in the name of Halifax NZ was maintained at a level required by IB. From time to time, Halifax treasury would notify IB they wanted to make a deposit and IB would provide an account number for the deposit.

(i) There was a regular flow of funds from the ANZ Halifax NZ account to the NAB New Zealand dollar account.

commingled pool of funds deposited by other clients before their own funds were cleared.
(January 2016 to 23 November 2018) the following amounts were paid into the IB AU master account:19

(a) net payments of AUD 28.3 million flowed from the IB allocated account;

(b) payments totalling approximately AUD 900,000 were transferred from the Halifax Pro Allocated account (funds deposited by MT4 clients and MT5 clients);

(c) net payments of approximately AUD 3.2 million flowed from the ANZ HNZ dollar account (funds deposited by Halifax NZ clients); and

(d) funds of approximately AUD 5.4 million were transferred from various foreign currency accounts.

(a) net payments of AUD 17.5 million flowed from the IB allocated account;

(b) payments totalling approximately AUD 1.5 million were transferred from the Halifax Pro Allocated account (funds deposited by MT4 clients and MT5 clients);

(c) net payments of approximately AUD 19.8 million flowed from the ANZ HNZ account; and

(d) funds of approximately AUD 22.1 million were transferred from the foreign currency accounts.




  1. A flowchart showing the typical application of credits to clients’ sub-accounts on the IB Platform and client accounts on the MT4 and MT5 is attached marked ‘B’.

(a) NZD 8,139,247 was transferred from the ANZ HNZ account to the NAB company account;

(b) NZD 350,000 was transferred from the ANZ HNZ account to various foreign currency accounts; and

(c) NZD 2,114,724 was transferred from Halifax’s AU NAB NZD account to the ANZ HNZ account.





20 A flowchart showing an example of how the funds were co-mingled is attached marked ‘C’.

The Whitehead Interests’ case

(a) first, they argue that Mr Whitehead deposited money solely to the Halifax NZ trust account. They say that money was applied to purchase the Whitehead Interests’ holdings;

(b) next, they note the separate legal entities of Halifax NZ and Halifax AU; and

(c) they argue that, at the date of administration, Halifax NZ was not insolvent so was in a position to satisfy its trust obligations to the Whitehead Interests. The Whitehead Interests held a personal bundle of rights in a solvent company.

[86] Of course, rateable distribution is subject to an important qualification

— it does not apply if the claimants do not have equal claims: French Caledonia at [176] and [185]. Put another way, it is necessary to determine whether there should be differential treatment of claimants. That question is determined on available evidence. Thus, if a claimant can establish a remedy founded on tracing, the court will grant relief founded on that evidence because it permits it to reach a different conclusion in respect of that claimant: French Caledonia at [178], [187] and [189].



21 Georges (in his capacity as joint and several liquidator of Sonray Capital Markets Pty Ltd (in liq) v Seaborn International (as trustee for the Seaborn Family Trust) [2012] FCA 75, 288 ALR 240 [Sonray].

22 Re BBY Ltd (recs and mgrs apptd) (in liq) (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 346, (2018) 363 ALR 492 [BBY (No 2)] at [51].


and then, importantly for present purposes:24

[214] The liquidators accepted that a Sonray client is beneficially entitled to shares on a their sub-account on a trading platform provided that the shares were not purchased with money that passed through a tainted segregated account or the proceeds of shares purchased with such money and were not otherwise “connected with” a tainted transaction.


23 Sonray, above n 21.

24 Sonray, above n 21.

25 BBY (No 2), above n 22, citing Sonray, above n 21.

[45] Sonray proceeds on the principle that “all contributors to a deficient mixed fund hold an equitable charge over the entire fund and its traceable proceeds to the value of their contributions, subject to any dealings and costs

... or are equitable tenants in common of the mixed fund as a whole, including its traceable proceeds, and subject to such deductions”. Thus a person who deposits money in a trust account, whose money by reason of subsequent transactions becomes mixed in a deficient second trust account, thereby acquires an equitable charge over all of the moneys in the second account, and so can be said to be “entitled” to money in the second account. In Sonray, the transfers of client money from one segregated account to others “tainted” the others with both the deficiency in the first account and the equitable joint charge over, or the equitable tenancy in common in, the money transferred; and because they could no longer practically or economically be the subject of a cash tracing exercise, they could be regarded as irreversibly deficient and mixed, and treated as one fund and pooled.

  1. BBY (No 2), above n 22, at [46]; and Re MF Global Australia Ltd (in liq) [2012] NSWSC 994, (2012) 267 FLR 27 [MF Global] at [47]–[49].
AU master account and IB NZ master account, which they rely on for the record of their holdings, are ledgers rather than bank accounts. As Mr Kelly explained, the cash in the IB bank accounts transferred from the general Halifax NZ accounts enabled the debits and credits in the IB NZ master account (and from time to time the IB AU master account) to the clients’ sub-accounts in those ledgers to take place. The buffer or credit that the relevant Halifax entity had in its master account enabled IB to carry out the transaction requested. There was, however, no cash flow directly associated with particular entries in the ledger.


  1. Re Registered Securities Ltd [1991] 1 NZLR 545 (HC); and Finnigan v Yuan Fu Capital Markets Limited (in liq) [2013] NZHC 2899.

28 Foskett v McKeown [2000] UKHL 29; [2001] 1 AC 102 (HL).

29 Re International Investment Unit Trust [2005] 1 NZLR 270 (HC).

  1. Priest v Ross Asset Management Ltd (in liq) [2016] NZHC 1803, (2016) NZCLC 98-046 at [159], [161]–[163], [166].

31 Priest v Ross Asset Management Ltd (in liq), above n 30, at [15].

32 Re Registered Securities Ltd, above n 27.

basis was the only rational mode of distribution. Similarly, in the present case, the applicants’ evidence is sufficient to displace the “recorded” allocation of holdings in the Whitehead Interests’ names. The Whitehead Interests cannot have a separate and individual right to holdings acquired from the admixed fund, rather they have a shared right to an interest in all such holdings.

[81] But “mixture” can be a matter of degree, and is not necessarily irreversible; it can sometimes be seen that the fund B money sits for a short time in fund A, as oil on water, and is then removed elsewhere. In such a case, where fund A is in effect merely a conduit or temporary repository before the money reaches its ultimate destination (and particularly if fund A has disgorged the money it received, back to fund C) it is difficult to see why fund B should be regarded any longer as having contributed to fund A, and the beneficial interest of the fund A beneficiaries diminished on that account — although that may be subject to qualification depending on how long the money was retained and the use made and benefit derived by fund A from the money while it retained it.


33 BBY (No 2), above n 22.

Our investigations to date indicate that Halifax NZ became insolvent on or around 23 November 2018, being the date from which Halifax AU was unable to continue to provide financial support.

Our preliminary investigations have revealed that the company may not have traded while insolvent for a material time (if at all). It is likely the company became insolvent on or after 23 November 2018 being the date administrators were appointed to Halifax AU and the director immediately took steps to appoint administrators to Halifax NZ.

Q. So it – by definition of what a solvent or insolvent company is, it was considered solvent, was it not?

A. It’s – it’s difficult to answer that question. Because Halifax New Zealand was entirely dependent on Halifax Australia for its income flows and for its revenue, the question remains as to whether Halifax New Zealand was actually solvent because of the insolvency of

Halifax Australia. But the fact remains, as far as the director knew of

– as far as – sorry – as far as Mr Gibbs and the other two directors whose names escape me at the moment would have [known] the income flows from Halifax Australia were sufficient to allow the Halifax New Zealand operation to pay its debts as and when they fell due. When those weren’t sufficient, the Halifax expenses would have been paid out of client moneys. So it’s an open [question] as to Halifax New Zealand was in fact solvent or [insolvent], but the directors certainly considered that it was based on what they knew.

...

Jeff Worboys, the Australian director – he was director of both – would’ve had a different point of view.

response when some clients had chosen to close out, while others had retained open positions. To pool in those circumstances would amount to an unprincipled windfall to some. I deal with the reasons for rejecting that submission in the context of considering Mr Hyde’s case for the first respondent.

Category 3 investors

[57] ... On the other hand, pooling may be inappropriate where the trust ledger records provide a reliable factual foundation on which to mould relief, and mere difficulty in ascertaining entitlements to permit distribution by single account may not suffice to justify “pooling”, though that would be influenced by the size of the estate, the number of claimants, and the degree of difficulty.



34 Eleven Category 3 investors (including Mr Hingston) have been identified to date.

35 BBY (No 2), above n 22, (footnote omitted).

36 Sonray, above n 21.

been purchased with money that had passed through a tainted segregated account, and were not otherwise connected with a tainted transaction.





37 Caron v Jahani in their capacity as liquidators of Courtenay House Pty Ltd (in liq) and Courtenay House Capital Trading Group Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 117, (2020) 382 ALR 158 [Courtenay House].

apply to other kinds of fungible funds,38 that does not address whether the lowest intermediate balance rule is applicable on the facts of a particular case.

[9] ... how limited funds in a bank account are to be distributed between investors whose funds were deposited into and co-mingled in that account over a number of years, ...

[3] ....it is by no means clear... that it would be appropriate to apply the lowest intermediate balance method if the losses were incurred in the course of legitimate trading pursuant to the mandate given to Courtenay House ....

And:41

[5] Finally, the determination of distribution in accordance with the lowest intermediate balance method may be of such complexity that a liquidator would be justified and entitled to distribute on a pari passu basis.



38 Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd (in receivership) [1995] 1 AC 74 (PC); Re Global Finance Group Pty Ltd (in liq) (supervisor apptd); Ex Parte Read (as liquidator of Global Mortgage Investments Pty Ltd and Global Finance Group Pty Ltd) [2002] WASC 63, (2002) 26 WAR 385 [Global Finance]; and Brady v Stapleton, [1952] HCA 62; (1952) 88 CLR 322.

39 Courtenay House, above n 37, at [9].

40 At [3].

41 At [5].


42 Priest v Ross Asset Management Ltd, above n 30.

43 Ellison v Sandini Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 44, (2018) 263 FCR 460 at [148].

44 See Re BBY (No 2), above n 22, at [57].

they are Altium shares which sets Mr Hingston’s holding apart. It is that his holding itself (it could have been any other shareholding) was not purchased from a tainted fund but rather was transferred into Halifax AU from an untainted source and, importantly, remains untainted.

45 Mr Kelly’s affidavit, dated 24 November 2020, at 22.

deficient mixed bank accounts in the present case. They were untainted and were held from the outset by IB AU as custodian.


46 BBY (No 2), above n 22, at [83].

  1. On this issue, Mr O’Hara, the nominated respondent also addressed the Court on the possible consequences of the imposition of a CGT.
The transfer of shares (in specie) would coincide with the extinguishment of an equitable right, which would be the disposal of a CGT asset.

Category 5 investors

(a) clients of Halifax AU or Halifax NZ who transferred shares from another broker to the Saxo Platform and never traded in those shares, which shares were transferred from the Saxo Platform to the IB AU Platform or the IB NZ Platform and were recorded in a client account on the MT5, the IB AU Platform or the IB NZ Platform;

(b) clients of Halifax NZ who purchased shares through the IB NZ Platform prior to the date on which Halifax AU purchased a controlling interest in Halifax NZ and never traded in those shares;

(c) clients of Halifax AU and Halifax NZ who purchased shares through the IB AU Platform, the IB NZ Platform or the MT5 Platform prior to the date of deficiency (as determined by the Courts) which shares were never traded.

be excluded from any pari passu distribution. He noted that in Re BBY Ltd (No 2)

Brereton J had cited with approval the comments of Black J in MF Global that:48

[47] ... “the case law has recognised that, where there are relatively clear property interests in particular property, this cannot ‘be altered by reference to some notion of common misfortune’” and that “accounts should only be pooled ... if mixing or another proper basis for pooling is established”.


48 BBY (No 2), above n 22, citing MF Global, above n 26, at [78].

to be able to confirm that individual clients come within that category then, as noted, the applicants can seek further directions.


49 Re Hallett’s Estate [1880] UKLawRpCh 38; (1879) 13 ChD 696 (CA).

Markets Ltd (in liq), and Eaton v LDC Finance Ltd (in rec).50 Those cases confirmed the application of the Re Hallett’s Estate principle, namely that where trust money was mixed with the trustee’s personal money, the beneficiaries of the Trust are entitled to a charge on the property purchased. Applying the principle to the present case, it would be assumed that Halifax AU and Halifax NZ depleted their own monies first before accessing clients’ funds.

Sonray, Gordon J had confirmed that:53




  1. Finnigan v Yuan Fu Capital Markets Limited (in liq), above n 27; and Eaton v LDC Finance Ltd (in rec) [2012] NZHC 1105.
  2. For example, on 9 June 2015 Halifax AU lent Halifax NZ NZD 1.2 million to satisfy the requirements of its FSP’s licence.

52 Sonray, above n 21.

53 At [83]. References omitted.

... all contributors to a deficient mixed fund hold an equitable charge over the entire fund and its traceable proceeds to the value of the contributions, subject to any dealings and costs or are equitable tenants in common of the mixed fund as a whole, including its traceable proceeds, and subject to such deductions.


And then later, at [218], Gordon J held that as the transferred cash went through a tainted segregated account, it was also tainted, before concluding that shares purchased with transferred cash or assets purchased with deficient mixed client funds:54

... should be treated as subject to the equitable charge or equitable tenancy in common in favour of all contributors to the tainted segregated accounts ...

(5) The pragmatic nature of the jurisdiction means that neither strict proof of mixing such as would entitle a beneficiary to an equitable proprietary remedy, nor absolute impossibility of tracing, is required; pooling may be directed where the identification and tracing of the interests of individual clients is not in the circumstances of the particular case reasonably and economically practical, on the basis that it is reasonable in the circumstances that the funds be regarded as irreversibly deficient and mixed.

And:56

(7) ... That requires the Court to form a view, if it can — albeit an imprecise and impressionistic one — as to what is likely to be the extent of the interest of the beneficiaries ...



54 At [218].

55 BBY (No 2), above n 22, at [83].

56 At [83].

started in January 2016, there was no reason to think there was any moment after Halifax AU acquired a majority interest in Halifax NZ that there was not a comingling.

Category 1/Category 2 investors

2020, the balance had increased only marginally to AUD 126,761,344.07. The Category 2 clients say that client entitlements should be calculated at the date of administration and, while they do not necessarily oppose an in specie distribution, they seek a pooling of investments so that all clients share equally in the gains or losses in investments left open following the date of administration.

Barry Taylor and DM3


Distribution Methodology 3
Adjudication Date
Administration Date
Claims Assessed at Adjudication Date
$211,601,822
(a)
Fund Deficiency
$40,150,845
(b)
Investor Claim at Administration Date
$10,000,000
(c)
Investor proportionate share (Investor Claim %)
4.73%
(c) ÷ (a) = (d)
Minimum Investor Cash Requirement (“MICR”)
$1,897,472
(b) x (d) = (e)
Investor Distribution Entitlement (Notional)
$8,102,528
(c) – (e)
Value of Investor Portfolio at Distribution Date
$20,000,000
(f)
Investor Distribution Entitlement (Actual)
$18,102,528
(f) – (e)

(a) fixing the administration date as the date for determining claims removed the uncertainty of fixing a future date given the nature of assets in the deficient mixed fund;

(b) notionally distributing to clients their investment portfolios on the investment administration date subject to withholding the MICR gave certainty as to entitlements;

(c) the deficiency of the fund was able to be forecast with reasonable accuracy so that each client would be informed as to the MICR required to fund their proportionate contribution to the deficiency if necessary;

(d) the methodology most effectively attributed the outcomes of each client’s individual investment choices since the administration date to that client;

(e) the methodology provided the simplest and most effective method for clients to elect to receive a distribution in specie in cash or in a combination; and

(f) the methodology reduced the risk of error in distributing the fund to clients by removing the risk of market volatility after the administration date.

for exclusion from an in specie distribution. He noted that the liquidators had assumed in excess of 1,549 clients may wish to have an in specie distribution, but he considered there would likely be further reductions in that number. In response to the liquidators’ point that the assets held for an in specie distribution will continually change value, which added to the complication of calculating client entitlements, Mr Taylor considered a date as close to the distribution date as possible would still be workable.

(a) First, each client would be advised of the value of their claims. In theory those clients on the IB AU and IB NZ platforms with open positions would be entitled to transfer some of the open positions without liquidating those positions.

(b) Next clients would advise the liquidators about their decision by completing a form setting out the assets which they would like to be transferred to an alternative broker as part of an in specie distribution. An investor would need to have an account with the alternative broker.

(c) Next Halifax would process each individual transfer form completed by clients. Mr Kelly has assumed that 1,549 clients would like an in specie distribution so there would be an equivalent number of transfer forms to be processed. That would take around three weeks for the Halifax staff members to complete. But it would take longer than that to complete the transfer forms because the staff have additional tasks to perform. Further, it may take longer in individual cases.

(d) Once transfers had been effected, the liquidators would undertake the closeout of remaining investor positions. Assets remaining in the AU IB client subaccounts for which the liquidators had not received a request for an in specie distribution would be addressed.

“[t]here is a marked difference between this case which involves dealings in a trust account over a long period of time and those cases where a number of investors contribute to a trust fund in a relatively short period of time, where a pro rata distribution may be a suitable means of distribution, especially in the absence of records”.


57 Courtenay House (No 2), above n 37.

58 At [98].

“Is it really a principle of private law that parties’ rights may be forfeited to convenience? And if so, whose convenience?”

... “where there can be tracing, there shall be tracing. Where there cannot, the ‘nearest approach practicable to substantial justice’ shall be taken.” ...

Courtenay House decision:60

[165] ... application of the simple pari passu approach is to force one victim to subsidise another in the face of evidence before the Court (namely that some or all of an earlier investor’s deposit had been dissipated) and openly to redistribute property.


He submitted such an outcome would occur in this case. Mr Hyde of course accepted that the Courtenay House case was different factually but submitted the statements of principle were still applicable.






59 At [133].

60 At [165].

“[o]nce a contribution is made to the fund, the contribution ceases to have any identity linked to its contributor. The contributor’s rights become proportionate rights in relation to the fund as it exists from time to time, as distinct from rights in respect of specifically traceable assets within it...”. (emphasis added).




  1. At [93] citing Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Idylic Solutions Ltd (2009) 76 ACSR 129, [2009] NSWSC 1306 at [74].

(a) there was extensive commingling between Halifax AU and Halifax NZ accounts;

(b) there was extensive commingling of monies in accounts which were to be used for investments though the IB platform and the MT4 and MT 5 platforms;

(c) there was no principled basis or pattern to the commingling; and

(d) the commingling included the use of client funds to discharge other clients’ obligations to Halifax and obligations owed by Halifax to other clients. As a result the funds were mixed and commingled.

Discussion







62 BBY (No 2), above n 22, at [83].

  1. Re Waipawa Finance Company Ltd (in Liq) [2011] NZCCLR 14 (HC); and Re Ross Asset Management Ltd (in Liq) [2018] NZHC 2007.

In Re International Investment Unit Trust (another Ponzi), pari passu distribution was seen as being fairest because all investors had paid into a mixed fund knowing their money would be blended with that of other investors. Therefore, their presumed intention was also for pari passu sharing.

a pragmatic and fair way to share a common misfortune. It is the misfortune being common that gives rise to the pari passu distribution, rather than some pre-existing proprietary right held in common.

64 Priest v Ross Asset Management Ltd (in liq), above n 30, at [105].

65 At [107].

McGechan J noted the Court searches for “the nearest approach practicable to substantial justice”.66 In Re International Investment Unit Trust (in statutory management) Williams J said “what is required is a search for the least unfair result for the investors”.67

66 McKenzie v Alexander Associates Ltd (No 2) (1991) 5 NZCLC 67,046 (HC) at 67,065.

  1. Re International Investment Unit Trust (in statutory management) [2005] 1 NZLR 270 (HC) at [73].
not been in issue. For example, in Sonray68 the administration date was accepted by the Judge as the logical date, but no party had expressed a different view.

The recent decision in BBY Ltd suggests that ... the date of appointment of administrators is the appropriate date at which to calculate entitlements. ...

Such a position is somewhat complicated where Client positions remained open on the appointment date. In such circumstances, it may be appropriate to determine the value of the positions by reference to the value of those positions when closed out.

...

It appears that it is reasonably practicable to carry out a calculation of the value, as at the appointment date, of positions which were open on the appointment date but which were closed out subsequently. Accordingly, it appears that the appointment date of 23 November 2018 is likely to be accepted by the Court as the appropriate date for crystallising the value of all investments.



68 Sonray, above n 21.

69 BBY (No 2), above n 22, at [372]; In the matter of BBY Ltd (recs and mgrs. apptd) (in liq) (No 3)

[2018] NSWSC 1718 at [2]–[4]; and MF Global, above n 26.

70 Minute No 8 of Venning J, dated 21 February 2020.

In my view, the adoption of the Appointment Date as the date for the quantification of entitlements finds strong support in the approach adopted in trust law generally and in insolvency.








71 Courtenay House (No 2), above n 37.

72 MF Global, above n 26, at [114].

73 Liquidators’ Report to Investors and Creditors, dated 31 August 2020 at 9.6.2.

Remaining issues

Post appointment deposits

Set-off

Low/minimal balances




74 BBY (No 2), above n 22, at [375]–[392]

Currency

Final orders

Category 3 investors

(a) The applicants are justified in organising for the shares of clients of Halifax AU and Halifax NZ that were transferred from another broker to the IB AU Platform or the IB NZ Platform, and were never traded (Category 3 shares), to be transferred to a person nominated in writing (including by email) by the client in respect of whom the entitlement to those shares is recorded by Halifax AU or Halifax NZ (as the case may be).

(b) The applicants are justified in conclusively identifying clients of Halifax AU and Halifax NZ as those with an entitlement to Category 3 shares by:

(i) sending a written communication (which may include an email) to all clients of Halifax AU and Halifax NZ with accounts on

the IB AU Platform or the IB NZ Platform, which have open share positions recorded, asking them to confirm in writing within 21 days whether they contend they have an entitlement to Category 3 shares (Category 3 communication); and

(ii) proceeding on the basis that only affirmative responses of clients to the Category 3 communication are to be further considered as to whether the clients responding hold an entitlement to Category 3 shares.

(c) If the applicants do not receive, within 35, days a written response to the Category 3 communication, the applicants are justified in treating those who have not responded as having no entitlement to Category 3 shares.75

(d) The applicants are justified in requiring that all clients of Halifax AU and Halifax NZ from whom they receive an affirmative response to the Category 3 communication, pay to the liquidators a fee of AUD 1,500 within 21 days of the applicant’s request for such a fee, together with a proportionate share of all the additional fees and expenses of the liquidators concerning their work in relation to the Category 3 shares as approved by the Court.

(e) If the liquidators do not receive the fee of AUD 1,500 requested in Order (d) within 35 days of their request, the applicants are justified in treating the shares the subject of the Category 3 communication as not being Category 3 shares and in distributing them in accordance with the directions at (m) and following.









  1. I consider this to be a practical approach and analogous to the reasoning adopted in MF Global UK Ltd [2013] EWHC 1655 (Ch).

Category 5 investors76

(f) The applicants are justified in organising for the shares of clients of Halifax AU and/or Halifax NZ who:

(i) transferred from another broker to the Saxo platform and never traded in those shares, which shares were transferred from the Saxo platform to the IB AU platform or the IB NZ platform and were recorded in a client account on MT5 platform, or the IB AU platform or the IB NZ platform; or

(ii) purchased shares through Halifax NZ prior to 1 July 2013 and never traded those shares; or

(iii) purchased shares through the IB AU platform, the IB NZ platform or the MT5 platform prior to 1 May 2012 and who never traded those shares;


(known collectively as Category 5 shares) to be transferred to a person nominated in writing (including by email) by the client in respect of whom the entitlement to those shares is recorded by Halifax AU or Halifax NZ (as the case may be).

(g) The applicants are justified in conclusively identifying clients of Halifax AU and Halifax NZ as those with an entitlement to Category 5 shares by:

(i) sending a written communication (which may include an email) to all clients of Halifax AU and Halifax NZ with accounts on the IB AU platform or the IB NZ platform, which have open share positions recorded, asking them to confirm in writing within 21 days whether they contend that they have an




76 The Court has already made an order extending the ambit of Category 5 clients: [150]–[151].

entitlement to Category 5 shares (Category 5 Communication); and

(ii) proceeding on the basis that only affirmative responses of clients to the Category 5 Communication are to be further considered as to whether the clients responding hold an entitlement to Category 5 shares.

(h) If the applicants do not receive, within 35 days, a written response to the Category 5 Communication, the applicants are justified in treating those who have not responded as having no entitlement to Category 5 shares.

(i) The applicants are justified in requiring all clients of Halifax AU and Halifax NZ from whom they receive an affirmative response to the Category 5 Communication pay to the liquidators a fee of AUD 1,500 within 21 days of the applicants’ request for such a fee together with a proportionate share of all the additional fees and expenses of the liquidators concerning their work in relation to the Category 5 shares as approved by the Court.

(j) If the liquidators do not receive the fee of AUD 1,500 requested in order

(i) within 35 days of their request, the applicants are justified in treating the shares the subject of the Category 5 Communication as not being Category 5 shares and in distributing them in accordance with the directions at (m) and following.

Post-appointment deposits

(k) The applicants are justified in arranging for post-appointment deposits deposited on or after 27 November 2018 into the ANZ Halifax NZ account and the ANZ USD account to be returned to the investor(s) who made those deposits.

Date of calculation of value of clients’ entitlements

(l) Subject to the above orders the applicants are justified in adopting the appointment date of 27 November 2018 as the date on which the proportionate entitlements of clients are to be calculated.

Pooling and distribution

(m) Subject to the above orders the applicants are justified in calculating client entitlements using the pari passu approach.

(n) Subject to the above orders as soon as reasonably practicable the applicants are justified in closing out or directing the closing out of:

(i) open position of clients of Halifax NZ recorded in accounts on the IB AU Platform and the IB NZ Platform; and

(ii) open positions of clients of Halifax NZ recorded in client accounts on the MT4 and MT5 Platform.

(o) Subject to the above orders the applicants are justified in pooling the funds in the Bank Accounts listed in the schedule hereto.77

(p) For the purpose of calculating each client’s entitlement in accordance with the above orders or for the purpose of making a distribution to clients in accordance with the above orders the applicants are, prior to making the calculation and/or distribution, justified in converting into Australian dollars or New Zealand dollars any foreign currency in their Halifax NZ’s control.

Distribution process

(q) The applicants are justified in adopting the following process to distribute investor entitlements.


77 Schedule attached as annexure ‘D’.

(r) The applicants are to email each investor (or, if email is not, in the liquidators' opinion, the most appropriate means of communication with an individual investor, post to the investor's last known address) a notification providing them with unique login details to a secure, web- based investor portal (Investor Portal) and instructing them that, upon logging into the Investor Portal, they will be notified of the value of their entitlement for the purpose of any distribution (Distribution Notice).

(s) In the Investor Portal, the applicants are:

(i) to ask clients to verify their identity and to confirm the value of their investment;

(ii) if a client disputes the value of their entitlement, to ask the investor to notify the applicants of this and provide reasons and supporting documentation (if any) in support of their position; and

(iii) to ask clients to provide their bank account details (nominated bank account) for the distribution of an entitlement.

(t) Clients are to be given 21 days to respond to the Distribution Notice by logging into the Investor Portal and completing the steps identified in order (s)(ii) above.

(u) If, in response to the Distribution Notice, a client affirmatively disputes the value of their entitlement, then, on the condition that their response is accompanied by both reasons and any necessary supporting documents:

(i) the applicants are to assess whether the dispute is well-founded;

(ii) if the dispute is well-founded, the applicants are to notify the client that the liquidators agree with the issues raised in the

dispute and have agreed to amend the value of the entitlement; and

(iii) if the dispute is not well-founded, the applicants are to notify the client that they may apply to the Court (in these proceedings) if the client considers that their dispute is well-founded and that otherwise the liquidators may proceed to distribution on the basis of the value of the entitlement as set out in the Distribution Notice.

(v) The applicants are to proceed to distribution on the basis of the value of the entitlement of each client as recorded in the Investor Portal if:

(i) within 35 days of the Distribution Notice, the client confirms the value of their entitlement on the Investor Portal; or

(ii) the client does not log into the Investor Portal to confirm or dispute their entitlement within 35 days of the Distribution Notice; or

(iii) the client logs into the Investor Portal and disputes their claim but provides no particularity as to the basis of their dispute within 21 days of notification that the client must provide further particularity or else the distribution will proceed on the basis of the client’s entitlement as set out in the Distribution Notice; or

(iv) the applicants notify the client that their dispute is not well- founded in accordance with the process in order (u)(iii) above and the client does not apply to the Court (in these proceedings) within 21 days of that notification.

Set-off

(w) The applicants are justified in proceeding on the following basis in respect of the calculation of entitlements of clients:

(i) where a client has multiple accounts on the IB AU Platform and/or the IB NZ Platform and/or the MT4 Platform and/or the MT5 Platform, the applicants are entitled to combine the balances of those accounts to calculate the net position of a client; and

(ii) setting-off positive account balances credited to a particular client against negative account balances incurred by the same client.

Low account balances

(x) The applicants are justified in treating clients who have a credit balance of AUD 100 or less as having no right to participate in the distribution of funds by the applicants.

Electronic communications

(y) Subject to (r) above, the applicants are justified in publishing or sending any notices, correspondence or other relevant material to clients as part of the distribution process by:

(i) sending copies of any notices, correspondence or other relevant materials to the email address of each client for whom the liquidators or Halifax AU or Halifax NZ holds an email address;

(ii) by notice or link on: https://home.kpmg/au/en/home/creditors/halifax-investment- services.html

https://home.kpmg/au/en/home/creditors/halifax-nz-limited.html.

Reservation of leave

Costs






Venning J





Solicitors: Russell McVeagh, Auckland

Tailored Legal Solutions Ltd, Dargaville Anderson Lloyd, Christchurch

Simpson Grierson, Auckland K&L Gates, Australia Gilbert + Tobin, Australia Turks Legal, Australia Maddocks, Australia Murdoch Clarke, Australia

Counsel: A Leopold SC, Australia V Whittaker SC, Australia R Scruby SC, Australia






2021_111300.jpg

2021_111301.jpg

2021_111302.jpg




‘B’




2021_111303.jpg

'C'









ș°
December

2Dll


2021_111304.jpg

2021_111305.jpg

2021_111306.jpg

Example of commingling between bank accounts

‘D’

HALIFAX DRAFT ORDERS – NZ PROCEEDINGS

Bank
Account Name
Account Number
Currency
Note




the Orders dated 2
2021_111307.jpg
July 2020
NAB
HALIFAX INVESTMENT
HALIIUSD01
USD
This account

SERVICES PTY LTD (IN

contains US

LIQUIDATION) - IB AU

dollars withdrawn

CASH ACCOUNTS (AU)

from IB AU




Investor accounts




as per the Orders




dated 2 July 2020

Bank accounts of Halifax NZ

Bank
Account Name
Account Number
Currency
Note
ANZ
FCA (EUR)
205964EUR0000
1
EUR
ANZ
FCA (USD)
205964USD0000
1
USD
ANZ
Business Current Account (ANZ HNZ Account)
01-0121-
0135307-02
NZD
ANZ
FCA (GBP)
205964GBP0000
1
GBP
ANZ
FCA (AUD)
205964AUD0002
0
AUD
ANZ
HALIFAX NEW ZEALAND
06-0323-
NZD

LTD (IN VOLUNTARY
0537865-00

ADMINISTRATION)

ANZ
HALIFAX NEW ZEALAND
06-0323-
NZD

LTD (IN VOLUNTARY
0537865-01

ADMINISTRATION)

ANZ
FCA (AUD) (Post-
Appointment)
257085AUD0000
1
AUD
ANZ
FCA (EUR) (Post-
Appointment)
257085EUR0000
1
EUR
ANZ
FCA (GBP) (Post-
Appointment)
257085GBP0000
1
GBP


Bank
Account Name
Account Number
Currency
Note
ANZ
FCA (USD) (Post-
Appointment)
257085USD0000
1
USD
NAB
HALIFAX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) - IB NZ
Cash Accounts (AU)
08200542961975
4
AUD
This account
contains Australian dollars withdrawn from IB NZ Investor accounts as per the Orders dated
2 July 2020
NAB
HALIFAX NEW ZEALAND
HFNZLNZD01
NZD
This account

LIMITED (IN

contains New

LIQUIDATION) - IB NZ

Zealand dollars

Cash Accounts (AU)

withdrawn from




IB NZ Investor




accounts as per




the Orders dated




2 July 2020
NAB
HALIFAX NEW ZEALAND
HFNZLUSD01
USD
This account

LIMITED (IN

contains US

LIQUIDATION) - IB NZ

dollars withdrawn

Cash Accounts (AU)

from IB NZ




Investoraccounts




as per the Orders




dated 2 July 2020

NZLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2021/1113.html