In Stojkov v Kamal [2015] NZHC 2513 a creditor, Mr Stokjov, gave notice to the appointed liquidator, Mr Kamal, for a meeting of creditors to be called. Mr Kamal did not call the meeting and maintained that the notice was given out of time. Mr Stokjov reasonably pointed out that this was plainly incorrect. Mr Kamal, despite clearly being in breach of his duty, still refused to call the meeting and later claimed (quite irrelevantly) that the cost of the meeting was not justified.
Sanson v Ebert Construction Limited [2015] NZHC 2402 concerned the successful application by liquidators to set aside payments made pursuant to a direct deed arrangement, as they were payments made on behalf of the insolvent developer. Sanson was the first New Zealand case where a liquidator has raised this argument but it is unlikely to be the last. Direct deeds are a common contractual tool in construction projects to give financiers the right to step into the place of the developer and directly arrange for payments to the contractor to ensure that t
In King v PFL Finance Limited & Anor [2015] NZCA 517, the Kings, a husband and wife team of farmers, arranged finance from PFL Finance Limited but the loan went into default. PFL served PLA notices but failed to serve the Kings as guarantors. A receiver was appointed to the farming operation, who determined to cease trading the day after his appointment.
In Purewal v Countrywide Residential Lettings Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1122, the receivers of a property did not make an insurance claim in relation to damage to the property. The mortgagor of the property (a bankrupt) repaired the property himself. He brought an action against the receivers for breach of duty by failing to make an insurance claim, claiming damages for the cost of the repairs.
INTRODUCTION
The Royal Court of Guernsey has taken the welcome step of dedicating specific court time to company and insolvency matters.
THE PRACTICE DIRECTION
The Royal Court of Guernsey has issued a Practice Direction pertaining to the information required when applying for the appointment of an administrator or liquidator in Guernsey.
The Practice Direction
This article focuses on the judgments delivered in June and October 2014 by the Guernsey Court of Appeal in the long-running Tchenguiz litigation [Investec Trust (Guernsey) Limited and Another v Glenalla Properties Limited and Others]. The litigation concerned the liabilities of a trustee to creditors in circumstances where the creditor claims far outweighed the value of the trust fund.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) v Saad Investments Company Limited (SICL) and Singularis Holdings Ltd (SHL)involved an application by PwC for the setting aside of orders made by the Supreme Court of Bermuda in favour of the liquidators that required the production of documents relating to SICL and SHL. Included among the grounds on which PwC relied to set aside the order were that:
A case recently heard in the UK suggests that, in certain circumstances, a claim for conversion of assets may be brought against administrators and liquidators of a company. While the claim did not succeed on the facts inEuromex Ventures Ltd & Anor v BNP Paribas Real Estate Advisory & Ors [2013] EWHC 3007 (Ch), the case illustrates that claimants may bring a proceeding on the basis of alleged acts of conversion by a company's liquidators and administrators.
In our December 2012 insolvency update we reported on CP Asset Management Ltd v Grant, in which the High Court upheld a creditors' resolution to appoint new liquidators. The High Court found that a resolution should only be set aside when it was found that the prejudice to creditors was unreasonable. In the High Court, the minority of creditors who voted against the resolution were unable to e