Here’s a bombshell that’s shaking up New Zealand’s financial scene: a Christchurch-based investment firm is under the microscope of the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), and the details are as intriguing as they are complex. But here’s where it gets controversial—the firm in question, Chance Voight Investment Corporation, is led by none other than Bernard Whimp, a figure no stranger to regulatory scrutiny. This isn’t just about one company; the investigation extends to its subsidiaries and associated entities, all tied to the Chance Voight Group. The High Court in Christchurch has stepped in, appointing PWC as interim liquidators at the FMA’s request, adding another layer of drama to this unfolding saga.
The six companies under the spotlight are Chance Voight Investment Corporation Limited, Chance Voight Investment Partners Limited, CVI Securities Limited, CVI Financial Limited, CVI Partners Mortgage Fund Limited, and CVI Partners Mortgage Income Fund Limited. PWC has until January 26 to report back to the High Court, leaving many on the edge of their seats. And this is the part most people miss—Whimp’s rise to prominence in the 2010s was fueled by off-market offers to buy shares from investors at prices below their market value, a practice that earned him a court battle with the then-Securities Commission over what they called misleading “low ball” offers. Fast forward to 2014, and the FMA tightened regulations, effectively shutting down such practices. But the question remains: is history repeating itself?
The FMA’s investigation into Chance Voight is ongoing, and they’re keeping tight-lipped due to suppression orders. Meanwhile, in a surprising twist, Chance Voight recently acquired financial advice provider Patterson Wealth, though it appears Patterson Wealth is unscathed by the liquidation orders—for now. Here’s the kicker: Is this a case of a businessman pushing boundaries, or a systemic issue in the financial sector? And what does this mean for investors who trusted these entities? The FMA’s findings could set a precedent, but until then, the financial community is left speculating. What’s your take? Do you think Whimp’s past practices are relevant to this investigation, or is this a completely new chapter? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments below.
