Supreme Court Denies Peter Huljich’s Appeal in Insider Trading Case

The Supreme Court has rejected an application for leave to appeal from businessman Peter Huljich, who was convicted of insider trading related to his transactions involving Pushpay Holdings shares. Huljich’s conviction stemmed from a case initiated by the Financial Markets Authority three years prior, culminating in a guilty verdict in August 2023.

Huljich’s legal troubles began in April 2018, when Eliot Crowther, co-founder of Pushpay, disclosed his intention to sell his shares. The shares were sold in June 2018 at a price of $4.04 each. However, the Crown alleged that Huljich had knowledge that a trust holding Pushpay shares sold them at an average price of $4.21 shortly after Crowther’s announcement, claiming that he had encouraged this action based on his expectation of the impending share price impact.

In the aftermath of his conviction, Huljich attempted to challenge both the conviction and the High Court’s decision regarding name suppression. He lost both appeals earlier this year. The Crown also contested Huljich’s sentence of six months of community detention and an initial fine of $100,000. The Court of Appeal later increased the fine to $200,000.

Following this ruling, Huljich maintained his innocence and sought to escalate his case to the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court dismissed his application, stating, “The proper approach to the offence of insider conduct under the Financial Markets Conduct Act may be a matter of general or public importance and general commercial significance. However, we are not sufficiently persuaded on these facts that the Court of Appeal might have erred in its approach to evaluating the materiality of information.”

Huljich, a member of the prominent Huljich family based in Auckland, is the son of Christopher Huljich, who co-founded Huljich Wealth Management. This firm was later sold to Fisher Funds. As this case unfolds, it continues to draw attention within financial circles, raising questions about the implications of insider trading laws in New Zealand.

The developments surrounding this case highlight the ongoing scrutiny of financial practices within the market and the responsibilities of individuals in safeguarding against insider trading. As the legal proceedings conclude, the implications of this case will likely resonate across the financial landscape, impacting both investors and regulatory bodies.