It is quite a thing for the law to remove from owners the rights normally associated with ownership and to confer them on receivers. 

Which is why, although receivers are allowed considerable discretion in the exercise of their duties, they are also subject to oversight by the courts.

So how much freedom of manoeuvre do they have, and when will the court intervene?  We look at a recent decision¹  in the Australian Federal Court and consider its relevance for New Zealand insolvency practitioners.

Several issues of far-reaching significance in the world of restructuring and insolvency will be decided by the courts, and by Parliament, this year. 

Some have yet to surface but others are already in the pipeline.

We look at what we consider to be the “top five”.

Litigation funding

A recent interlocutory decision (Action Media Ltd v Mitchell [2015] NZHC 3121) in ongoing litigation between the liquidators and the former director and shareholder of Action Media Ltd (In Liquidation) gives some guidance on the relationship between the liquidators' powers under section 261 of the Companies Act 1993 and their obligations to discover relevant documents under their control.  The defendants had requested discovery from the liquidators of certain correspondence between the liquidators and the IRD, and of pre-liquidation correspondence between the company and

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).

For the first time in New Zealand, the High Court has considered whether a compromise under Part 14 of the Companies Act 1993 can release guarantors of a company's debts.  Silverfern proposed a Part 14 compromise to its creditors and, as part of that compromise, the guarantees given by Silverfern's directors and shareholders, Mr and Mrs O'Connor, of Silverfern's debts, would be unconditionally released.  The compromise was approved by the required majority but opposed by the plaintiffs. 

In Havenleigh Global Services Ltd and FM Custodians Ltd v Henderson, relating to the bankruptcy of David Henderson, the Official Assignee had issued a notice under section 171 of the Insolvency Act to Xero for the provision of company records.  Associate Judge Osborne prohibited publication of a ruling about the lawfulness of the notice pending the public examination of Mr Henderson and judgment.  The Official Assignee applied for directions allowing publication because the prohibition prevented Xero from commenting on media articles about how it responded to the not

​The Supreme Court has ruled that some family trust structures will be ineffective in protecting assets from claims by former partners and, potentially, other creditors.

The decision in Clayton v Clayton has implications for everyone who establishes trusts to manage relationship property, estate planning and insolvency risk.

The facts

In Shlosberg v Avonwick Holdings Ltd [2016] EWHC 1001 (Ch), Mr Shloesberg applied for an order restraining Dechert (a firm of solicitors) from acting for Avonwick (the first respondent) and Mr Shloesberg's Trustees in bankruptcy (the third respondents). 

A director is not absolutely liable for all losses suffered by a company on his or her watch.

So the Court of Appeal has ruled in a recent liquidation dispute.

The context

Rowan Johnston, a former investor and director in NZNet, pumped funds into the company when it ran into difficulties, but found that NZNet’s managing director Stephen Andrews had misled him about the company’s financial position.

On 15 September 2011, he resigned his directorship and a couple of months later, NZNet went into liquidation.

Torchlight was a private equity fund investing in distressed assets. One of its investments was the purchase of a debt from Bank of Scotland International totalling $185m, of which Torchlight had repaid all but $37m.  Being in a difficult liquidity position to pay off the debt, Torchlight sought bridging finance from a Mr Grill.  Torchlight and Mr Grill entered into a 60-day contract in which Mr Grill would provide $37m to discharge the debt.