In Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2014] NZHC 567, the High Court found that receivers are not personally liable under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 (the Act) for body corporate levies under the Unit Titles Act 2010.

The facts

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.

Section 296(3) of the Companies Act 1993 (the Act) provides a defence to creditors who have received a payment found to be a voidable transaction under section 292 of the Act. One of the elements that creditors need to establish under this defence is that they either provided value to the company or changed their position in reliance on the validity of the payment.

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.

Recently a number of businesses that were acquired in the relatively heady pre-GFC days have needed to take action to restructure their equity and debt. Often the businesses have been carrying a significant debt burden from the acquisition. Compounding this, the value of the business may have been eroded to a level that is less than the value of the debt, possibly because of operating results having deteriorated and/or the valuation multiples attributed to the business having shortened.

A recent High Court decision by Justice Heath on the new section 30(2B) of the Receiverships Act 1993 (the Act) provides guidance as to how receivers should account for their remuneration and expenses when dealing with accounts receivable and inventory.

The key points are as follows:  

Until recently, the PPSA did not give second and subsequent ranking secured creditors a statutory right to take possession of collateral in the event of default. The PPSA has recently been changed to allow all secured creditors to exercise this right. The recent case of Glenmorgan v New Zealand Bloodstock [2011] NZCA 672, however, confirms that all secured creditors can also rely on contractual rights to take possession of collateral. Secured creditors should ensure that their security documents clearly give them this right.

In a decision released in September 2011, the High Court ruled that a mortgagee cannot exercise its power of sale under the mortgage if the Family Court has subsequently made an interim occupation order under the Property (Relationships) Act. That ruling had significant consequences for mortgagees, and was appealed to the Court of Appeal.