In Navarac v Pty Ltd v Carrello [2016] WASC 327, the court-appointed receiver and manager of Esperance Cattle Company Pty Ltd had applied for orders from the court to conclude the receivership.
In order to prepare evidence and submissions to oppose the receiver's application, a director of the company applied to inspect certain documents, which she asserted were or might be held by the receiver.
In State of Victoria v Goulburn Administration Services (In Liquidation) & Ors [2016] VSC 654, the Victoria Supreme Court appointed two partners of Ernst & Young (EY) as special purpose liquidators (SPLs) of two companies, despite EY's involvement in carrying out contractual compliance audits before those companies went into liquidation.
In Re PrimeSpace Property Investment Limited (In Liquidation) [2016] NSWSC 1450 the Supreme Court of New South Wales was asked to consider whether it could make directions in respect of the investigation of the affairs of a corporate trustee (whose only assets were held on trust). The company, as trustee, had guaranteed a loan from a third party and also granted that third party first option on several apartments.
On 22 November 2016, The European Commission announced a proposal for a new, more consistent approach to business insolvency across the member states of the EU. It is hoped that the proposed directive will create greater efficiencies in the insolvency process, enhance financial stability and provide greater certainty to investors and companies operating across the EU.
The liquidators of two Cayman Island companies obtained orders under s 195(3) of the Bermudan Companies Act 1981 for PwC, as the companies' auditor, to provide information and documents to the liquidators. PwC decided to appeal but, in the meantime, did US$250,000 of preparatory work necessary to enable compliance, if required, with the orders.
As a result of the appeal, both orders were set aside. In PricewaterhouseCoopers v SAAD Investments Co Ltd & Anor (Bermuda) PwC applied to recover from the liquidators the costs of preparing to comply with the orders.
In our June 2016 update, we discussed the Court of Appeal's decisions in Madsen-Ries v Petera[2016] NZCA 103, Calvert v Reynolds [2016] NZCA 151, and Petterson v Browne [2016] NZCA 189. In all three cases leave was sought to appeal to the Supreme Court. Leave was granted to the applicant companies in Petterson v Browne, but declined in all other cases. 
In the recent High Court case of McKay v Johnson & Smith [2016] NZHC 1691, a liquidator, Geoff Martin Smith, allegedly sent a notice under s 305 of the Companies Act 1993 to the bank that had security over a company in liquidation. The bank did not respond to the notice and Mr Smith alleged that the bank had lost its security. The bank maintained it never received the notice.
The Court was satisfied that the notice had been fabricated because:
In Advicewise People Ltd v Trends Publishing International Ltd, four creditors of Trends Publishing International Ltd (Trends) successfully challenged a compromise approved under Part 14 of the Companies Act 1993.
The High Court's ruling in Priest v Ross Asset Management Ltd (In Liq) [2016] NZHC 1803 arose out of the devastation of the Ponzi scheme effected by David Ross of Ross Asset Management Limited (In Liquidation) (RAM) and Dagger Nominees Limited (Dagger). For many years RAM and Dagger reported spectacular returns for investors before their illusion was revealed, the Financial Markets Authority became involved and liquidators were appointed.
In Petterson v Hutt a liquidator sought an interim injunction preventing any enforcement steps being taken under two general security agreements (GSAs). In the substantive proceeding, the liquidator sought to have the GSAs set aside.