Drama in property development saga widens

A failed Fiji investment, a FJ$3.6 million claim and a disputed family deal — Andrew Griffiths’ financial battle now involves his parents.

Mr Griffiths is the controversial development promoter behind the dormant multimillion-dollar Sorena Naisoso project, which was launched in 2023.

Recent developments in legal proceedings involving Mr Griffiths raise critical questions about checks on people promoting major developments in Fiji.

Court documents indicate that, first, his investment company went into liquidation. Then his attempts to overturn that decision failed. Its development interests were sold.

Now, Mr Griffiths’ parents are defending a family deal that creditors claim put valuable assets beyond their reach.

The dispute centres on Blue Views LLC, a company that owned a villa at Vunabaka in Fiji. Mr Griffiths’ parents, Colin and Margaret Griffiths, took over his shareholding after enforcing lending arrangements with their son.

Creditors are challenging that transaction in the New Zealand court.

They allege it was designed to keep assets away from those seeking payment. Mr Griffiths and his parents dispute the claim.

What began as a failed resort investment has become a court battle over company money, property and family finances.

Sorena Naisoso

Sorena Naisoso was launched at the Grand Pacific Hotel, with Mr Griffiths appearing as director of Tourism Capital Partners.

Minister for Tourism Viliame Gavoka and Member of Parliament Biman Prasad, who was Minister for Finance at the time, were among the political figures who attended.

When asked about investor scrutiny, Mr Prasad said the Government’s role was to support investment, transparency and accountability.

“If there are issues, then the various agencies, who approve these investments; it's their job to look at the applications and do due diligence in approving investment proposals," he said.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Industries, Commerce and Business Development Manoa Kamikamica confirmed that he had recently met people involved in the project.

Mr Kamikamica was adamant the project would proceed.

Questions sent to Mr Griffiths about Sorena Naisoso and the implications of the litigation were unanswered when this edition went to press.

When the money ran out

When Shine a Light examined the Six Senses Fiji saga in March 2025, Mr Griffiths was already fighting the consequences of his company’s collapse.

Satori Holdings held interests in the Six Senses resort venture and the separate Vunabaka Bay development.

When more funding was required, Satori failed to pay its share.

Interim liquidators were appointed in June 2022.

Full liquidation followed in February 2023, putting the company’s affairs in the hands of professionals responsible for recovering assets and dealing with its debts.

Mr Griffiths challenged the liquidation through New Zealand’s courts.

He failed.

In May 2024, the Supreme Court refused permission for a further appeal.

Then came another financial deadline.

Satori needed to contribute more money to protect its 31.66 per cent interest in the Vunabaka Bay development. Without payment, that interest faced being sharply reduced.

The liquidators sought court approval to sell.

By March 2025, the National Business Review (NBR) reported that the sale had been completed.

Island Grace and Sequitur entities acquired Satori’s Vunabaka assets for FJ$9,072,309.

The price was met partly in cash and partly by cancelling debts. The sale helped meet liquidation costs and creditor claims.

For Mr Griffiths, it was another setback. His company remained in liquidation, and its development assets had passed into creditors’ hands.

But the sale did not end the dispute.

Fight for $3.6m

In October 2024, receivers began proceedings against Mr Griffiths personally.

According to NBR, they alleged that he had arranged for Satori to pay money to him when the company’s ability to pay its debts was at risk.

They sought repayment of FJ$3.6 million to Satori, along with a smaller amount owed to Island Grace.

With a Fiji property connected to Mr Griffiths about to be sold, the receivers also asked the court to restrict dealings with assets.

Justice Gerard van Bohemen found that they had an arguable case and that there was a real risk assets could be moved or spent.

The New Zealand High Court granted a freezing order. Such an order is intended to preserve assets while a dispute is being decided.

It is not a final ruling that the money claimed is owed.

According to the reporting reviewed, an application to register the order in Fiji was declined.

Mr Griffiths rejected the receivers’ allegations. NBR reported him saying that he needed the property sale proceeds to defend the case and pay outstanding expenses, including a legal bill exceeding $241,000.

He also claimed that unlawful transactions had caused Satori’s insolvency and evidence emerging in Fiji was under investigation.

Parents’ involvement

The Blue Views transaction brought the dispute into the family.

According to NBR, Mr Griffiths’ parents enforced security for lending to their son and took over his 99 per cent shareholding in Blue Views.

They acted as secured creditors and trustees of the Beryl Griffiths Family Trust. Mr Griffiths is identified as a beneficiary of that trust.

Citing the receivers’ ninth report, NBR reported that the receivers and Satori’s liquidators had brought proceedings alleging that the foreclosure was coordinated to keep assets beyond creditors’ reach.

Following the assets

The receivers have also sought more information about who owns and controls the assets involved.

Further disclosure orders were granted in August 2025. These required additional information to be provided.

NBR later reported that Mr Griffiths sought to have the orders struck out, with the receivers opposing that move.

Widening dispute

Satori went into liquidation. Mr Griffiths failed to overturn it. Its Vunabaka development assets were sold.

The claim for money allegedly paid to Mr Griffiths and the challenge to his parents’ acquisition of the Blue Views shares have yet to be resolved in the reporting reviewed.

For creditors, the goal is to recover money. For Mr Griffiths and his parents, the task is to defend the claims and the family transaction.

For agencies responsible for scrutinising investment proposals, the questions are different: what checks were made, what did they establish, and has anything since prompted another look?