In Erceg v Erceg1 the New Zealand Court of Appeal ruled on the standing of bankrupt beneficiaries to bring claims against trustees. In addition, the Court considered the role of trustee discretion when determining beneficiary access to trust documentation. The decision is useful for trustees and beneficiaries alike, and provides clarity on the steps a Court may take when deciding whether or not to grant beneficiaries disclosure of trust information. Although this is a New Zealand decision, other common law courts such as Hong Kong may reach similar conclusions.
A High Court finding this month that a liquidator fabricated a key document and failed to account for receipts of over half a million dollars highlights the need for regulation of the insolvency profession.
The case
The liquidator, Geoff Martin Smith, claimed to have sent a notice under section 305 of the Companies Act to the bank holding security over the company in liquidation. The notice required the bank’s election, in default of which its security would be deemed surrendered. The bank said it never received the notice.
The High Court has issued its first major decision under Part 15A of the Companies Act, rejecting a multi-faceted challenge by Cargill International to the Solid Energy Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA).
The ruling provides important guidance on the operation of New Zealand’s voluntary administration regime.
Chapman Tripp acted for Solid Energy’s lenders, the fourth respondents in the proceeding.
Background
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is proposing law change after the Court of Appeal ruled that KiwiSaver funds are beyond the reach of the Official Assignee.
The effect of the ruling is to provide a higher level of protection for KiwiSaver balances than for other forms of retirement savings.
MBIE is seeking feedback on a range of options to create a uniform policy approach to the use of retirement savings in bankruptcy.
Submissions close on 30 September 2016. We encourage you to make a submission.
Background
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Steel & Tube Holdings Limited (STH) against the legal basis and quantum of a $750,000 judgment based on a “de facto amalgamation” with its subsidiary company.
The ruling reinforces the message from the High Court that directors must be careful to maintain a subsidiary’s independence if they are to protect the parent against liability for the subsidiary’s debts.
The context
Directors do not need to consider creditors’ interests when determining the fairness of their own remuneration, even after the company has become insolvent, the Court of Appeal has found.
The facts
The Companies Act 1993 requires that directors who vote to authorise director remuneration must sign a certificate stating that, in their opinion, the payment is fair to the company and setting out the grounds for that opinion.
Mr and Ms Moncur were the sole directors and effective owners of Monocrane NZ (Monocrane). Following their separation, they entered into a relationship property agreement under which Mr Moncur assumed full ownership and control of Monocrane, including agreeing to assume sole responsibility for the overdrawn shareholders' current account. In return, Ms Moncur agreed to resign her directorship, transfer her shares to Mr Moncur and pay various joint debts.
Mr Kamal was appointed as liquidator of two companies of which the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (CIR) was a creditor. The CIR applied to the High Court for orders under section 286(5) of the Companies Act 1993 prohibiting Mr Kamal from acting as a company liquidator for a period of up to five years.
In CIR v Kamal [2016] NZHC 1053 the CIR sought the orders on the basis that Mr Kamal was guilty of a continuing breach of his duties as a liquidator that made him unfit to act as a liquidator because:
The Court of Appeal in Madsen-Ries v Petera considered the reasonableness of directors' remuneration in circumstances when a company is in a dire financial position. Mr and Mrs Petera, directors of a failed transport business, were asked by the liquidators to repay the salaries they declared for tax purposes, because they had not complied with the certification requirements under section 161 of the Companies Act 1993 (Act), being to satisfy themselves on reasonable grounds that the payments were fair to the company.
In Ebert Construction Ltd v Sanson [2016] NZHC 472, the High Court awarded costs to liquidators after a statutory demand issued by the liquidators had been set aside by consent. The reasons were as follows: