More than two years after the Commerce Committee reported back on the Insolvency Practitioners Bill, Parliament took up the second reading of the Bill late last week – the next step in what has been a long and protracted process.

The original Bill proposed a negative licensing regime, under which the Registrar of Companies would have the power to prohibit individuals from acting as insolvency practitioners.

The Court of Appeal last week extended the armoury available to liquidators seeking to unwind a voidable transaction. Although the Companies Act sets out a procedure for liquidators to follow, the Court held that this is not exclusive, and that liquidators can also serve a statutory demand seeking payment of a voidable debt. Is this a shortcut likely to save costs, or is it a false economy?

The voidable claim

Receivers are well aware that they can limit or exclude their personal liability on a contract by appropriately worded language, in accordance with the Receiverships Act. But what about litigation? Is a receiver sufficiently protected against a personal costs award if the litigation is in the name of the company rather than the receiver?

If a liquidator is found guilty of stealing money from a company in liquidation, most creditors would assume that he or she could never be a liquidator again. Not in New Zealand. A recent case highlights the need for urgent reform of the regulation of insolvency practitioners.

Justice Heath issued a sweeping judgment last month limiting the ability of liquidators to examine witnesses and seek documents. In the decision, ANZ National Bank Ltd v Sheahan and Lock [2012] NZHC 3037, the Court also:

A recent case alleging serious misconduct by a liquidator highlights the need for New Zealand to reform the regulation of insolvency practitioners. The case, Official Assignee v Norris [2012] NZHC 961, illustrates the inadequacies of our current regime.