Registration will be mandatory under the Insolvency Practitioners Bill as reported back to the House by the Commerce Committee. This is a radical and far-reaching change from the negative licensing regime initially proposed in the Bill.
This Brief Counsel summarises and comments on the Committee’s report.
Big receiverships often test legal boundaries, and the Crafar group receivership is no exception. Gibson & Stiassny v StockCo & Ors1 is the longest decision to date on the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA).
Although the facts are complex, the practical take-outs are fairly simple:
This FYI outlines the things you need to know about the Insolvency Practitioners Bill in its latest form. You can follow this link to access the Bill on the New Zealand legislation website. The Bill is new legislation that seeks to improve the regulation of administrators, liquidators, and receivers. It proposes amendments to the Companies Act 1993 and the Receiverships Act 1993.
The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision, agreeing with receivers that certain sales by the debtor were not in the ordinary course of business, but rather payments to an unsecured creditor.
In this case1 when the debtor began to experience cash flow difficulties, it established another company to purchase stock, which the debtor would find buyers for. Sales were made either in the name of the new company, or the debtor would account to the new company for the sale proceeds.
The Gibson & Stiassny v StockCo & Ors litigation in relation to the Crafar receivership has clarified important aspects of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA).
The procedures seem obvious in the abstract but, as the case demonstrates, can be less obvious on the ground:
It is not uncommon for a receiver, liquidator or competing creditor to be presented with a security agreement, the ink on which appears scarcely to be dry.
If that secured creditor registered on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) months or years earlier, does that registration date determine priority between competing security interests? Or is that unfair to other creditors?
Finnigan v He underlines the obligatory nature of bankruptcy set-off whereby once the statutory requirements that exist in section 310 of the Companies Act 1993 are met (and no exclusion applies), such a set-off is mandatory. It also discusses when a transaction occurs and the operation of the exclusion in section 310(2) that preludes bankruptcy set-off.
The case of Taylor and Ors v B concerned a company that imported and distributed hair care products, Cabellos Holdings Limited.
Between 2006 and 2010, 50 New Zealand finance companies either went into liquidation or receivership, or froze payments. The Securities Commission has now released information about its investigations into these finance companies.
The information released highlights the Commission's work to date, the companies being investigated, the status of the investigations and the behaviour or act that triggered the Commission's involvement. It also answers some common questions about the Commission's work in connection with the failures, including: