In Re Hurlstone Earthmoving Limited (in receivership and liquidation): Petterson v Gothard (No 3) [2012] NZHC 666, the liquidator of Hurlstone Earthmoving Limited sought orders under section 37 of the Receiverships Act 1993 compelling the receivers to provide company documents and information about the company's affairs after they had failed to comply with a notice under section 261 of the Companies Act 1993.

In the case of In Re Silverdale Developments (2007) Ltd (In Liq): Bunting v Buchanan [2012] NZHC 766, the shareholders of Silver Developments (2007) Limited (in liquidation) unsuccessfully applied to the Court to terminate the liquidation under section 250 of the Companies Act 1993.

Albacore Fisheries Ltd (Albacore), a former creditor of Sunsai Ltd (Sunsai), applied to have Sunsai restored to the register of companies so that it could put Sunsai into liquidation and trace Sunsai's pre removal assets.

In the case of Southbury Insurance Ltd v Black, Messrs Downey and Black, the receivers of South Canterbury Finance (SCF) successfully sought permission from the Court to be appointed liquidators of Southbury Insurance Limited (Southbury) despite being disqualified under section 280(1) of the Companies Act 1993 (the Act).

According to media reports, the failure of a small IT company may jeopardise Telecom's XT network. 

Justice Venning approved a scheme of arrangement under Part 15 of the Companies Act 1993 effecting the managed withdrawal by ACS (NZ) Limited from its insurance business in New Zealand.  The Court noted that the Scheme provided the best opportunity for an ordered and efficient run-off and management of claims with minimal disruption in relation to the company's processes.  In liquidation, the liquidators would need time to familiarise themselves with the operation of the company and would proceed on a cautious basis, which would likely result in a material delay in meeting claims.

The recent case ofBay Flight 2012 Limited v Flight Care Limited is a reminder that holders of common law liens must take care to ensure that their lien is not extinguished by giving up possession.

In a decision concerning the expiry of a subordination agreement, the High Court has indicated that the priority of competing security interests is to be determined at the time the competing interests come in to conflict.

In Simpson v Commission of Inland Revenue (2012) 25 NZTC 20-119 (CA) the Court of Appeal held that receivers of a mortgagee which is not registered for GST must still account to Inland Revenue for GST on a mortgagee sale. This decision is controversial and pending possible resolution of the matter by an appeal to the Supreme Court, receivers of mortgagees that are not registered for GST should take legal advice as to how they should best proceed.