In our October update, we reported on the Court of Appeal decision in Grant v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (see here). The Supreme Court has now declined leave to appeal from that decision.
In Stockco Ltd v Denize the applicants sought an order to set aside bankruptcy notices on the ground that the creditor had not complied with High Court Rule 24.8(3). That Rule requires that a certified copy of the judgment or order on which the bankruptcy notice is based must be attached to the bankruptcy notice. The applicants claimed that the notice was defective as it was served separately from copies of the judgment.
Fairfield Sentry Limited (Sentry) was a "feeder fund" that placed 95% of its investments into BLMIS. When BLMIS was discovered to be a Ponzi scheme, Sentry suspended redemptions of its shares and went into liquidation. Here, Sentry's liquidators sought to have redemptions paid to the defendant investors prior to the suspension returned to Sentry's fund on the grounds that the redemptions were paid under a mistake because Sentry's net asset value (NAV) was "little better than nil" due to the Ponzi scheme.
The issues were:
In the High Court decision of Herbert v Allied Nationwide Finance Limited & Others, the Court declined to approve a creditor's proposal under the Insolvency Act 2006 on the grounds that the terms were not reasonable and not calculated to benefit the general body of creditors.
InThe Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Blackmore Trust Ltd, Blackmore tried to stave off liquidation for the sum of $1.4 million owed to the IRD. After six or seven adjournments, Blackmore finally put evidence before the Court (albeit through its lawyer, rather than by affidavit) claiming that its liabilities totalled $15.6 million, and its sole asset, the James Smith building in the Wellington CBD, was valued at $21.5 million as a going concern, or $11 million - $13 million in a "fire sale".
In our October 2010 insolvency legal update, we reviewed the case of South Canterbury Finance Ltd v Nielsen, where the Court found in favour of second mortgagee, SCF, on the interpretation of a deed of priority. That case was appealed successfully to the Court of Appeal by the first mortgagee, ASB. This update provides a brief review of the Court of Appeal's reasoning.
In Official Assignee v Spencer, Mr Spencer's bankruptcy period was extended from three to six years due to his conduct and failure to comply with his obligations under the Insolvency Act 1967 (Act).
Mr Spencer was adjudicated bankrupt for the second time in August 2007 and was due to be discharged from bankruptcy in 2010. However, the Official Assignee objected to Mr Spencer's discharge and asked the Court to exercise its discretion and decline to order the discharge.
In Grant v Commissioner of Inland Revenue, the Court of Appeal took little time to uphold a High Court decision that a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) under Part 15A of the Companies Act 1993 was void.
At the creditors meeting, the DOCA had been approved by the majority of creditors in number. Nevertheless, this did not constitute 75% of creditors in value. Mr Grant, as chair of a creditors' meeting, purported to exercise a casting vote in favour of the DOCA in order for it to be approved.
Managh v Morrison and Ors involved an application by a liquidator to set aside a transaction pursuant to section 292 of the Companies Act 1993. Approximately one year before liquidation the company assigned causes of action against a firm of solicitors and a real estate agent to a trust associated with the company's director.
In Capital + Merchant Finance Limited (in receivership) v Vision Securities Limited (in receivership) our Wellington commercial litigation team was successful in the Court of Appeal on a defendant's summary judgment application involving the interpretation of a subordination clause in a Security Trust Deed (Deed).