The sole role of ICS, the company at issue in the recent decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court in In the matter of Independent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 106, was to be the trustee of the similarly named ICS Trust.  Previous litigation had confirmed that the trust was not a sham and that all ICS's assets were trust assets.  In the present decision, the judge held that all expenses incurred by ICS were expenses incurred as trustee, and therefore ICS (and the liquidator) had a right to be indemnified for those e

On 24 March, HMRC published a summary of responses to the December consultation on Company Distributions, together with details of the Government's position on the issues raised. The December consultation was covered in my 3 February blog.

Today is the closing date for responses to a Government consultation on the tax treatment of company distributions.  You can read the consultation document here.

The direction of travel, per the consultation, is clear.  Anyone thinking of liquidating their company should consider these new rules carefully.

With the cyclical fluctuation in oil and gas commodity prices, the UKCS has had its fair share of E&P companies going insolvent. As the UKCS matures, the profile of companies that invest in the region is changing. Many smaller parties, potentially with less access to capital, are now building positions.  The commercial exposure is that some companies will not be able to meet cash calls, creating headaches for their co-venturers.

Torchlight was a private equity fund investing in distressed assets. One of its investments was the purchase of a debt from Bank of Scotland International totalling $185m, of which Torchlight had repaid all but $37m.  Being in a difficult liquidity position to pay off the debt, Torchlight sought bridging finance from a Mr Grill.  Torchlight and Mr Grill entered into a 60-day contract in which Mr Grill would provide $37m to discharge the debt.

In Erwood v Official Assignee [2015] NZCA 478 an application was made to review a decision declining to dispense with security for costs.  The applicant, Mr Erwood, argued that he had demonstrated impecuniosity, and that the Registrar had erred in finding to the contrary.

Mr Erwood held nearly $800,000 on deposit with a bank. His account had been frozen by the bank on the basis that Mr Erwood lacked the capacity to give the bank authority for the account.  The bank had formed this view on information provided to them by Mr Erwood.

Castlereagh Properties Limited (Castlereagh) and Gibbston Water Holdings Limited (Water Holdings) were both companies in David Henderson's Property Venture group. Castlereagh and Water Holdings entered into a sale and purchase agreement (SPA), under which Water Holdings sold all of its shares in Gibbston Water Services Limited (Water Services) to Castlereagh for $1.  Water Holdings was subsequently put into liquidation.

Torchlight Fund No 1 (Torchlight) contracted with Wilaci Pty Ltd (Wilaci) for a $37m loan. The terms included the payment of a 'late fee' of $500,000 per week.  Following default, Torchlight applied for a declaration that the fee was a penalty, and therefore unenforceable.  Torchlight also applied for directions as to the payment of the costs of the receivers appointed by Wilaci, arguing that a clause indemnifying Wilaci in respect of a default did not apply to such costs.  

Mr Pala and Mr Luthera were directors of Shanton, a large retailer of women's clothing in New Zealand.  BTC Group Limited (BTC) was in the business of supplying clothing to Shanton in accordance with Shanton's stock orders.  BTC had obtained guarantees from Shanton's directors, pursuant to which each director guaranteed the obligations of Shanton to BTC.  Earlier this year, Shanton was unable to pay its debts as they fell due and was placed into voluntary administration owing creditors over $7m.

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.