The High Court's ruling in Priest v Ross Asset Management Ltd (In Liq) [2016] NZHC 1803 arose out of the devastation of the Ponzi scheme effected by David Ross of Ross Asset Management Limited (In Liquidation) (RAM) and Dagger Nominees Limited (Dagger).  For many years RAM and Dagger reported spectacular returns for investors before their illusion was revealed, the Financial Markets Authority became involved and liquidators were appointed.

Mr Kamal was appointed as liquidator of two companies of which the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (CIR) was a creditor.  The CIR applied to the High Court for orders under section 286(5) of the Companies Act 1993 prohibiting Mr Kamal from acting as a company liquidator for a period of up to five years.

In CIR v Kamal [2016] NZHC 1053 the CIR sought the orders on the basis that Mr Kamal was guilty of a continuing breach of his duties as a liquidator that made him unfit to act as a liquidator because:

Sanson v Ebert Construction Limited [2015] NZHC 2402 concerned the successful application by liquidators to set aside payments made pursuant to a direct deed arrangement, as they were payments made on behalf of the insolvent developer. Sanson was the first New Zealand case where a liquidator has raised this argument but it is unlikely to be the last.  Direct deeds are a common contractual tool in construction projects to give financiers the right to step into the place of the developer and directly arrange for payments to the contractor to ensure that t

The English case Webster & Anor v Mackay is an appeal against a refusal to annul or rescind bankruptcy orders. The appeal was based on the assertion that the petition debt was not for a liquidated sum as required under section 267(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986. The debtors were obliged, as evidenced by a promissory note, to repay a loan of £200,000 to Mr Mackay. However, Mr Mackay also alleged a repudiatory breach of the loan agreement due to the failure of the debtors to provide accounts. 

In Bunting v Buchanan, the applicant shareholders sought discovery ahead of a hearing of their substantive application which involved the level of costs charged by two liquidators as a consequence of a drawn-out liquidation.

Justice Dobson has recently reversed his interim ruling that section 17A Judicature Act 1908 gives the Court jurisdiction to appoint a liquidator to a trust if satisfied there are reasons for doing so. He found that a trust is not an "association" to which section 17A applies, and instead appointed receivers with selected powers given to liquidators under the Companies Act 1993.

Armitage v Established Investments Limited (in liq) involved an appeal by an undischarged bankrupt (A), against a High Court decision imposing conditions that A was not to engage in business for three years following discharge at the end of his bankruptcy. The High Court had also ordered that the period of bankruptcy was to be extended for three years beyond the statutory three year period, although A did not challenge this aspect of the High Court decision.

The English High Court in Telnic Ltd v Knipp Medien Und Kommunikation GmbH [2020] EWHC 2075 (Ch) has confirmed that the court has discretion to restrain a winding-up petition against debtor's when the debt is governed by an arbitration agreement.

Knipp Medien Und Kommunikation GmbH (Knipp) appealed against an order to stay its winding-up petition against Telnic Limited (Telnic). Telnic also brought a cross-appeal seeking orders that Knipp's petition be dismissed rather than stayed.

The Government has passed an omnibus bill which introduced amendments that will assist New Zealand to respond to the wide-ranging effects of COVID-19.

In brief the changes to insolvency legislation are:

Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401 clarifies what is needed to establish a valid guarantee.

A Term Loan Agreement was entered into whereby Christine Regan and Mark Tuffin lent $50,000 to B & R Enterprises Ltd. Rachael Dey and Bryce Brougham were named as Guarantors. Bryce Brougham was the only guarantor to sign the agreement. The Company was put into liquidation and a demand made against the Guarantor.

The guarantor argued that the guarantee was not enforceable based on the following: