Companies in distress often undertake a sales of assets to alleviate cash flow or debt repayment issues when other lines of credit or source of funds have been exhausted. Such decisions are not taken lightly, especially as the disposal of assets is likely to detrimentally impact the underlying business or forecasts. Ultimately creditors’ demands and survival instincts will result in action being taken however it is often too late and to the detriment of the business.

Introduction

It is common for companies in distress to undertake a sales process of assets to alleviate cash flow or debt repayment issues. Often this course of action is the last resort after all other lines of credit have been exhausted or creditors have stopped providing extended terms of trade. Companies should not take such decisions lightly, especially if the sale will impact the underlying business or forecasts. However, ultimately creditors’ demands and survival instincts result in action being taken (often too late and to the detriment of the company).

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.

The latest development in what has been a long-running (and expensive) cross-border insolvency proceeding involving Nortel (see our June 2015 and September 2015 legal updates for previous instalments) is a settlement between:

Jellie v Tannenberg Limited concerned an application by the defendant, Tannenberg, to stay liquidation proceedings against it. Tannenberg claimed not to have been served with a copy of the statutory demand or liquidation proceedings. Instead, Tannenberg alleged that it first heard of the liquidation proceedings when they were advertised in the New Zealand Herald. In addition to the issue in respect of service, Tannenberg disputed the underlying debt on which the statutory demand was based.

Mr Maharaj owned a building company. Ms Nandani, his wife, owns a residential property. Mr Maharaj needed funding, which he could not obtain. However, the necessary funds were loaned to Ms Nandani and secured over her property. Ms Nandani subsequently contended that:

In Palmerston North City Council v Farm Holdings (4) Ltd (In Liquidation), liquidators were appointed to Farm Holdings by a creditor. Two District Councils applied to review the appointment of the liquidators. The appointing creditor sought to become a party to their application. The two District Councils opposed the appointing creditor becoming a party.

The New Zealand and UK Arbitration Acts generally require court proceedings to be stayed if the parties have agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration.

In a recent address to the Insolvency Lawyers Association, the new Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Geoffrey Vos, discussed briefly the effect of that statutory stay upon winding-up petitions.

Re Finnigan concerned the costs of a successful application to be appointed as liquidators after the liquidators had overlooked a disqualification.

In Intext Coatings Ltd (In Liquidation) v Deo, the High Court was again asked to consider the limits of the equitable remedy of tracing (previously considered here). In particular, the Court was asked to consider the circumstances in which 'backward tracing' (the tracing of trust funds used to repay a debt into the asset over which that debt arose) is available.