The Supreme Court has recently released a decision on directors' duties, which should serve as a timely reminder to all directors of their duties under the Companies Act in circumstances of insolvency. Continuing to trade while insolvent will be a breach of your duties, even if you believe that overall creditors may be better off or the extent of losses will be reduced. It is however welcome confirmation for liquidators that the Courts will enforce the provisions of the Companies Act based on the clear wording of these sections.

How does the objective of achieving payment for creditors in insolvency interact with the objectives of pension legislation, which seeks to ensure that individuals are adequately provided for in retirement? The courts in New Zealand and in the UK have each recently grappled with this issue. In both of the recent cases considered in this article the pensions objectives won out and the specific pension funds in question were not made available for the bankrupt individual's creditors.

Following the administration of Virgin Australia the lessors of four engines that were leased to Virgin served notice requiring delivery up of the engines to a nominated address in the USA.  The administrators argued that their obligations to the lessors were met if they made the engines available for delivery up in Australia. 

A Singaporean Court in Anan Group (Singapore) PTE Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Company) [2020] SGCA 33 has recently confirmed the Court’s approach in assessing arbitration clauses when an application has been brought to put a company into liquidation. 

The parties in this case are parties to an arbitration agreement.  The respondent applied to put the appellant into liquidation.  The Court considered that the winding up proceeding should be stayed with the underlying dispute to be resolved through arbitration.

Non-party costs are exceptional and are only awarded when it is just to do so and when 'something more' about the non-party's conduct warrants costs.  The involvement of a parent company in litigation and avoiding a realistic settlement is an example of the 'something more' requirement being met.  In Minister of Education v H Construction North Island Ltd (in req and liq) [2019] NZHC 1459, the High Court found that McConnell Ltd's (McConnell) actions in this litigation warranted awarding non-party costs and disbursements of over a million dollars.

Another recent judgment in the Walker litigation concerns the validity of a litigation funding arrangement from SPF No. 10 Ltd (SPF). That arrangement is being used to fund proceedings that the liquidators of Property Ventures Ltd (in liquidation) (PVL) have brought against PwC and the directors of PVL. See our previous update on the related litigation.

In McCollum v Thompson, the Court of Appeal partly quashed the orders of the High Court (previously reported in our March 2016 insolvency update).

The Supreme Court has recently dismissed an appeal against a Court of Appeal decision on the disclosure of trust documents to discretionary beneficiaries.

In Bailey v Angove's Pty Limited [2016] UKSC 47, the UK Supreme Court affirmed two principles of critical significance to insolvency practitioners.  The first is that even if the parties should agree that an agent's authority is irrevocable, it will not be treated as such unless such non-revocation is intended to secure the financial interest of the agent.  The second is that when money is paid to an agent for a consideration that the agent knows at the time of receipt must fail because of the agent's imminent insolvency, such receipt will not give rise to a rem

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: