Liquidators must seek a court order to recover an insolvent transaction – even where the creditor has not objected in time to a notice under section 294 of the Companies Act.
The importance of following the prescribed procedure was recently reinforced by the High Court.1
We look at the decision and the conclusions to be drawn from it.
The case
The High Court has held that liquidators cannot rely on the common law to recover insolvent transactions, and must now proceed under the statutory provisions of the Companies Act.
In Grant v Lotus Gardens Limited, the liquidators of Quantum Grow Limited applied unsuccessfully for an order that Lotus Gardens Limited be put into liquidation on the grounds that it was unable to pay its debts, asserting that Lotus Gardens owed it $25,000 being the amount of preferential payments made to them.
Receivers are well aware that they can limit or exclude their personal liability on a contract by appropriately worded language, in accordance with the Receiverships Act. But what about litigation? Is a receiver sufficiently protected against a personal costs award if the litigation is in the name of the company rather than the receiver?
The “good faith” defence for creditors facing insolvent transaction claims has now been fully explored by the Court of Appeal in two separate judgments relating to the Farrell v Fences and Kerbs Limited1 litigation – and has been confirmed on all points to have narrow application.
Confirmation by the Court of Appeal that “accounts receivable” are more than just book debts and include other legally enforceable monetary obligations owed to a company will provide welcome certainty to receivers and liquidators.
The issue is significant because it determines the assets available to pay preferential claims.
In Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Property Ventures Limited (in Liq & In Rec), the liquidator of Property Ventures Limited (in liq and rec) obtained orders requiring the New Zealand Police to produce computer equipment holding certain company records. The Police obtained the relevant information from the offices of a Mr Henderson, following a complaint by the liquidator alleging a failure to comply with notices issued under section 261 of the Companies Act 1993.
On 25 July 2013 the Court of Appeal issued its final judgment in Farrell v Fences & Kerbs Limited [2013] NZCA 329. The final judgment related to three conjoined appeals in which an interim judgment had been delivered on 27 March 2013 (Farrell v Fences & Kerbs Limited [2013] 3 NZLR 82). The interim judgment held that to rely on the defence to setting aside a voidable transaction in section 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 "new value" was required to be given at the time the payment that is sought to be set aside was made.
Syntax Holdings (Auckland) Ltd (in liquidation) v Bishop involved a claim by the liquidators of Syntax Holdings (Auckland) Ltd that Mr and Mrs Bishop (as directors) had breached certain duties to the company (and its creditors) under the Companies Act 1993.
The recent Court of Appeal case of Kakara Estate Ltd v Savvy Vineyards 3552 Ltd [2013] NZCA 101 provides a useful reminder that an assignment and a novation of an agreement are different. When an agreement is assigned, the assignor remains a party to the agreement. If the agreement is novated, a new agreement is created between the assignee and the continuing party, and the "assignor" is released.
A creditor wanting to keep the benefit of a potentially voidable transaction must be able to prove that value was given to the debtor company at the time payment was received, the Court of Appeal has held in Farrell v Fences & Kerbs Limited [2013] NZCA 91.