New Zealand Court Orders Liquidation of 23 Firms in Bernard Whimp's NZ$45 Million Investment Scheme Winding-Up

High Court Finalises Liquidation of the Chance Voight Group

New Zealand's High Court has placed 23 additional entities connected to Bernard Whimp into compulsory liquidation, completing the formal unwinding of what was once the Chance Voight investment group based in Rangiora, north of Christchurch. The Financial Markets Authority (FMA) confirmed the development on Monday, noting the court's order was entered on September 10 and encompasses 21 companies together with two limited partnerships.

Among the entities caught up in the order is Hanmer Equities Limited, the subsidiary that was specifically named alongside Whimp in the asset preservation orders the regulator secured in December of last year — the first major legal step taken against the group. John Fisk, Lara Bennett and Malcolm Hollis, who were originally appointed as interim liquidators over six of the Chance Voight entities in December, now hold the liquidator role across the entire 23-entity portfolio.

Funding Structure and Investor Exposure

According to reporting by The Press in July, which cited FMA figures, the group had attracted roughly NZ$45 million (approximately US$26 million) from investors. An interim liquidators' report, referenced by RNZ during the June court hearing, placed the group's net asset position at approximately negative NZ$12 million — a figure that signals substantial losses for those who put money into the structures.

The court divided the 23 entities into two categories. Those that still held bank accounts were declared insolvent on the standard test: they could not meet their debts as they fell due. The remaining entities, which had no bank accounts, were wound up on what the FMA described as "just and equitable" grounds. The regulator argued that treating those shells as legally separate from the wider group was artificial, and that a single, unified liquidation process would be more efficient for all stakeholders.

A particularly damning finding came during the June 29 hearing covering the first six companies. FMA counsel Richard May presented evidence from the interim liquidators' records showing that interest payments to existing investors — and in certain cases outright redemptions — had been funded primarily out of money contributed by new investors. The structure therefore bore the hallmarks of a classic Ponzi-style arrangement, in which incoming capital was used to service obligations to earlier participants rather than generating genuine returns.

Whimp was absent from that hearing, unrepresented by counsel, and a last-minute application he filed to postpone the proceedings was refused. Associate Judge Lester delivered the written decision on July 23.

"The judgment recognises that the active entities are insolvent," said Margot Gatland, head of enforcement at the FMA. She stressed that a single liquidation track protects both investors and creditors. The agency confirmed its broader investigation into the group and associated individuals is still ongoing.

A Long History of Regulatory and Legal Troubles

The liquidation order is the latest chapter in a pattern of misconduct stretching back more than a decade. Whimp received a five-year ban on managing or directing any company under the Companies Act, effective from April 2007. Companies Office records also show convictions for failing to comply with a liquidator's notice and for removing records, as well as a separate burglary conviction that carried a sentence of 250 hours of community service.

While that managerial ban was in force, Whimp reportedly exploited a regulatory gap by operating through limited partnerships — a structure the ban did not cover. He used those partnerships to make unsolicited buy offers to retail shareholders in a range of publicly listed names, including Vector, Contact Energy, TrustPower, Fletcher Building, Guinness Peat Group, and the DNZ Property Fund. Several of the offers, made around March 2011, appeared attractive on the surface but spread payments over a ten-year period, materially reducing their true value. The Securities Commission — the FMA's predecessor body — subsequently ordered the relevant partnerships to notify every affected shareholder that the original offer terms had been misleading.

Whimp has consistently rejected the regulator's position. In an email sent to investors following the December action, he denied that the companies were insolvent, claimed the funds held around NZ$50 million in deposits, and asserted that no quarterly interest or principal payment had ever been missed. He also stated that no investor had lodged a complaint with the FMA in six years and wrote: "FMA did not issue Chance Voight funds with any warnings or orders." Notably, the regulator did not pursue the group through the licensing regime; instead, it sought court orders on the grounds of insolvency, Companies Act breaches, and the just and equitable test.

Separately, Inland Revenue secured its own liquidation order over CVI Management Services LP back in July, a partnership that is referenced again in the latest judgment.

Broader Enforcement Context and Ongoing Investor Protections

The FMA's action against the Chance Voight group sits alongside a wider pattern of court-driven enforcement in New Zealand's financial sector. In July 2024, the agency revoked Rockfort Markets' derivatives issuer licence after Justice Edwards dismissed the firm's appeal, with the court finding breaches of at least eight licence conditions. In 2020, the regulator suspended the New Zealand licence of EncoreFX following the parent company's entry into administration in Canada, and the local book was wound down under supervision.

The asset preservation orders first granted in December remain in effect. They prevent Whimp from transferring assets out of the country, although the FMA clarified at the time that the orders do not otherwise limit his use of personal assets. For retail investors and small traders, the case serves as a stark reminder: fixed-income-style structures that promise low-risk, steady returns — particularly those operated outside a licensed framework and without transparent reporting — carry a material risk of being funded by new investor money rather than genuine investment income. The FMA's continuing investigation signals that further legal and financial consequences for those involved may still be ahead.