DD Growth Premium 2X Fund (the Company), was a Cayman Islands Ponzi scheme that concealed vast trading losses by attributing fanciful values to worthless bonds. As the GFC unfolded in 2008, RMF Market Neutral Strategies Limited (RMF) redeemed US$23m for its shares in the Company (the Payment). The Company was placed in liquidation a short time later and the Company's liquidators sought to claw the Payment back.

In Akers & Ors v Samba Financial Group (Rev 1) [2017] UKSC 6, the UK Supreme Court confirmed that British insolvency officers can only void dispositions of a company's assets held on trust in certain circumstances. 

The liquidators of Marathon Imaging Limited (Marathon) brought a claim against the company's director, Mr Greenhill, for a prejudicial disposition of property under section 346 of the Property Law Act 2007 and a breach of director's duties under the Companies Act 1993.  Marathon had begun defaulting on its tax commitments from 2008 onwards and became insolvent shortly after.  The Greenhill Family Trust (Trust), a secured creditor of Marathon, appointed receivers and the Commissioner of Inland Revenue had Marathon placed into liquidation just three days later.

In Kiwi Best Realty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Kashkari, the sole director of a failed real estate business was ordered to pay compensation for breaching his duties under ss 131, 135 and 136 of the Companies Act 1993.

Kiwi Best Realty was liquidated in September 2014, with over $600,000 owing to the IRD. The High Court noted that the company had been balance-sheet insolvent from year end 2012.

In Bailey v Angove's Pty Limited [2016] UKSC 47, the UK Supreme Court affirmed two principles of critical significance to insolvency practitioners.  The first is that even if the parties should agree that an agent's authority is irrevocable, it will not be treated as such unless such non-revocation is intended to secure the financial interest of the agent.  The second is that when money is paid to an agent for a consideration that the agent knows at the time of receipt must fail because of the agent's imminent insolvency, such receipt will not give rise to a rem

In Petterson v Browne [2016] NZCA 189 a liquidator successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal and obtained orders under sections 295 and 299 of the Companies Act 1993 (Act) for certain payments and security to be set aside. 

The majority of the Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court decision (see Buddle Findlay's summary here) that the liquidators of Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) can recover the fictitious profits obtained by Mr McIntosh ($454,047), but not his initial investment ($500,000).

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) v Saad Investments Company Limited (SICL) and Singularis Holdings Ltd (SHL)involved an application by PwC for the setting aside of orders made by the Supreme Court of Bermuda in favour of the liquidators that required the production of documents relating to SICL and SHL.  Included among the grounds on which PwC relied to set aside the order were that:

Bilta (UK) Limited (Bilta) and its liquidators brought a claim against the defendants for damages and equitable compensation on the basis of conspiracy to defraud and injure Bilta and for dishonest assistance by (among others) the 6th and 7th defendants in breach of fiduciary duties by Bilta's directors. The defendants argued that the unlawful conduct of Bilta's directors and sole shareholder could be attributed to the company itself, meaning that the action brought by Bilta and its liquidators would fail.

Re Tames involved an application for the Court to approve a debtor's proposal to creditors under section 333 of the Insolvency Act. The applicant was the provisional trustee for the proposal and sought the Court's approval of the proposal's terms. If the proposal was accepted, Ms Tames (the debtor) would only pay $0.05 on the dollar to her unsecured creditors. The application for approval was opposed by ASB, one of Ms Tames' unsecured creditors.