should

AUCKLAND, New Zealand – A bankruptcy dispute stemming from a failed residential build in Ōrewa has become a flashpoint in New Zealand’s wider debate about debt enforcement and director accountability-an issue with direct relevance to film and television production supply chains that rely on the same small contractors, fixed-price work, and time-critical delivery.

At the center is Mike Greulich, a builder whose company, Izodom Homes, was engaged in 2021 to construct a specialist “passive house” for homeowners Andreas and Anna Goetz. The couple say the project deteriorated into delays, missed milestones and construction errors over the following two years, ultimately leaving them “$1 million poorer” and “on the brink of having the bank seize their home.” The home was designed to meet the internationally recognised passive house standard for ultra-low energy use and high thermal performance, a specification that typically adds design complexity and cost to residential builds.

While the dispute involves a private build, the mechanics-cashflow stress, subcontracting, cost spikes, personal guarantees, court judgments, and the limits of insolvency enforcement-mirror the commercial pressures that can ripple through creative production ecosystems, from set builds and location fit-outs to post-production facilities operating on tight margins and delivery schedules. In New Zealand, those pressures sit against a legal backdrop defined by the Companies Act 1993, which sets out directors’ duties and the rules for insolvency and liquidation.

A debt timeline defined by court orders and bankruptcy constraints

The Goetzes say they took an unusual step in early 2023: lending $120,000 to Greulich’s company on the condition he personally guaranteed the debt, describing it as a “gold standard” measure intended to protect completion of the build. Personal guarantees by directors or owners are often used in construction and screen-sector contracting to bridge trust gaps when a company’s balance sheet is thin.

When the company did not finish the job or repay the loan, the couple took Greulich to court. In a February 2024 decision, Judge Mary-Beth Sharp criticised Greulich, saying his evidence “lacked credibility” and offered no real defence. The judgment left him personally liable and set up a direct test of how far New Zealand’s insolvency machinery can go in recovering funds for individual creditors.

By October 2024, the debt had risen to more than $152,000 when the Goetzes secured a court order requiring Greulich to pay $500 per week from wages earned at a Wellington building company. The $500 weekly payments were made for several weeks, with the family recovering $3950.

Greulich declared bankruptcy in December 2024, freezing the payments. Under New Zealand law, personal bankruptcy shifts control of a debtor’s assets and certain income decisions to the Official Assignee, a statutory officer within the government’s Insolvency and Trustee Service charged with administering the Insolvency Act and insolvency provisions of the Companies Act on behalf of all creditors rather than any one complainant.

The Official Assignee later ordered the $500 weekly payments to resume in early 2025, but the payments stopped after Greulich reported he was unemployed.

The Goetzes urged the Official Assignee to enforce payment, alleging in emails that they believed Greulich was working for a company now in his ex-wife’s name and hiding income. Assignee staff said there was nothing they could do under the law, reflecting the high threshold for proving “phoenix” activity or concealed earnings and the requirement to balance recovery efforts against verified financial hardship.

“Mr Greulich is presently unemployed. It is therefore no longer appropriate to proceed,” an insolvency team leader told the couple in a June 2025 email.

Goetz said the sequence “sends a message that [the Official Assignee] has no teeth to manage bad debtors,” adding: “And they can easily continue causing more financial waste and harm to everyone without consequence.” For families and small suppliers used to commercial contracts where non-payment can trigger suspension or repossession, the pivot into a formal insolvency process-slow, rules-bound and focused on equitable treatment of all creditors-can feel like a loss of agency as well as money.

Competing accounts: capacity to pay, project failure, and reputational damage

Greulich disputes the implication that he engineered the bankruptcy to evade repayment. He said he provided proof to the Official Assignee that he had no income and denied moving financial assets to avoid repayments. He also said the Goetzes were out to “destroy” him, arguing that sustained public criticism had damaged his ability to secure new work.

On the project itself, Greulich said he was the one “ruined” by the Ōrewa build. He claimed he spent $85,000 of his own money and used a $60,000 company overdraft trying to finish the job.

Greulich attributed failures to Covid-19 lockdowns and mistakes by other builders. He also said the build was negotiated at a fixed price, and claimed that after pandemic delays, building materials and costs spiked “40%,” but the Goetzes would not renegotiate the price. Fixed-price contracts, which are common in screen production for set construction and location works, can become commercially fragile when input costs move sharply and parties disagree on who should absorb the shock.

He said that because he was based in Wellington, he engaged other builders to complete the project, and he attributed further delays and cost overruns to their errors. He also claimed he was pressured to sign the personal guarantee for the additional $120,000, something his now ex-wife went “ballistic” at him for.

Greulich denied working for his ex-wife’s company. He said he asked the Official Assignee if he could do so to make “structured repayments,” but was declined. He added that his ex-wife was supporting him financially, “including covering rent, living expenses, and care for my dogs.”

Greulich said he sent documents to the Official Assignee showing that after the $500 per week payments, he did not have enough left for rent and food. He said bankruptcy made it difficult to get hired as a building manager, and said of Goetz and his unemployment: “He ruined my whole life.” He added: “I haven’t done it on purpose, not to pay him. I did it because I couldn’t any more.”

Greulich also said the Official Assignee granted him permission to “operate as a sole trader under accountant supervision” and that he was seeking new projects. Under New Zealand rules, bankrupt individuals may, with permission and oversight, trade again in limited circumstances-an allowance designed to keep people economically active, but one that can alarm former creditors who see work opportunities resuming without their debts being cleared.

Kelly Serrant, a regional manager of the Government’s Insolvency and Trustee Service, said the Official Assignee acted impartially according to the law and was monitoring the case, but could not comment on specifics for privacy reasons. The agency’s mandate is to treat all creditors consistently across a growing caseload of bankruptcies and liquidations, not to adjudicate moral blame in individual commercial disputes.

What this kind of dispute signals for screen-sector procurement

Production companies and studios typically manage supplier risk through layered contracting: milestone-based payment schedules, insurance requirements, performance bonds in larger-budget work, and a preference for vendors with sufficient balance-sheet capacity to absorb delays or price shocks. In practice, those protections tend to concentrate higher-value work with a limited pool of established providers.

But much of the practical work that turns creative plans into deliverable sets and locations-carpentry, fabrication, painting, waterproofing, electrical, HVAC, transport, specialist materials-still depends on smaller firms and individual trades, especially outside the biggest stages and service hubs. In that environment, fixed-price commitments can become brittle when input costs move sharply, and disputes can quickly shift from quality and schedule into recovery and enforcement.

The Goetz-Greulich dispute illustrates another reality relevant to production finance: even when a creditor has a judgment and a repayment order, insolvency can limit collection, and the enforcement tools available to administrators may not align with a creditor’s expectations of “justice” or deterrence. For studios and major commissioners, it reinforces the case for contingency planning around contractor failure-diversified supplier pools, clear step-in rights, and early-warning triggers based on payment performance and solvency checks.

For smaller producers and location-based shoots that may rely on a single trusted builder or fabrication shop, the case is a reminder that personal relationships and guarantees are not substitutes for systematic credit assessment, well-drafted securities over materials and equipment, and an understanding of how quickly debts can become unrecoverable once formal insolvency starts.

Lobbying pressure for Companies Act changes

A business-funded lobby group, the New Zealand Initiative, has pointed to the case as a “structurally broken” example of how debts can accumulate and remain unpaid. Oliver Hartwich, the group’s executive director, claimed hundreds of millions of dollars are left owing annually to families, tradies and the tax department. Business groups argue that this drag on balance sheets ultimately feeds through to higher costs of capital and greater caution in commissioning new projects, including in the screen sector.

Hartwich and others are lobbying Parliament for changes to Companies Act laws, arguing directors should be forced to place firms into liquidation more quickly-before substantial debts accumulate. Proposals in policy circles include tighter rules on so-called “phoenix” behaviour, stronger personal liability settings in cases of reckless trading, and more active use of director banning powers already available under the Companies Act.

In a message to the Goetzes, Hartwich wrote: “The system allows the builder to walk away while families and trades continue to carry the consequences.” That sense of imbalance between risk-taking directors and unsecured creditors is increasingly reflected in public submissions to government reviews and sector consultations.

The Goetzes, who say friends helped them cope through volunteering and food vouchers, said Andreas Goetz learned to plaster and waterproof the house himself to move the project toward completion. The couple also said they want Greulich’s bankruptcy extended beyond its current expiry in 2027 until the loan is repaid-an outcome that would require the Official Assignee or the courts to be satisfied that continued restrictions are justified in the broader public interest.

For lawmakers and regulators, the Ōrewa dispute sits at the intersection of two policy questions: how to encourage responsible risk-taking and entrepreneurship in sectors like construction and screen production, and how to ensure ordinary creditors are not left bearing disproportionate losses when projects go wrong. Any future changes to the insolvency regime will need to navigate both.