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. 

Reports have estimated that 1,300 UK law firms have been put at risk after Latvian insurer Balva was put into liquidation. Initially Latvian Board of Financial and Capital Market Commission (FCMC) insisted there was no cause for concern as all Balva’s insurance policies would remain effective and be transferred to its replacement underwriter, Berliner. However, when Berliner pulled the pin, declining to cover the Balva policies, panic hit the UK legal market. Berliner's exit was described by one broker as the “biggest hand grenade into [the] bottom end of the market for many years.”

The recent Australian Federal Court case of Neeat Holdings (in liq) [2013] FCA 61 considered the issue of whether the liquidator of a trustee company should be permitted to sell trust assets notwithstanding the appointment of a new trustee in substitution for the insolvent trustee company.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Healy Holmberg Trading Partnership v Grant, clarified the issue of prioritising multiple security interest claims. The Court held the first registered interest takes priority over a latter perfected claim. The Court analysed section 66 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999, which provides that priority is determined by which report was registered first, not by which claim is perfected first. The Court held section 66 was the guiding provision in establishing which party registered their interest first.

The Western Australian Court of Appeal has recently delivered its judgment on one of the country's longest running pieces of litigation: Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group (in liq) [No 3] (the Bell Appeal).  The Bell Appeal decision runs at over 1,000 pages and discusses a range of issues relating to transactions conducted immediately prior to insolvency.  Of particular significance for directors and financiers are the discussions relating to director's duties, knowing receipt and knowing assistance.

In Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 090 Ch, the English High Court was asked to decide whether a bankrupt’s entitlement to a pension, which he had not yet elected to receive, should be subject to an order for income payment.

The UK Supreme Court has recently considered the role of commercial common sense in interpreting a contract.  Rainy Sky v Kookmin Bank concerned the interpretation of bonds issued by Kookmin Bank to guarantee the return of advance payments made by six purchasers under separate shipbuilding contracts. The shipbuilder had suffered an insolvency event and the purchasers were claiming refunds of the advance payments made to the shipbuilder under the bonds. The Bank contended that the bonds did not guarantee repayment of the advances on insolvency.

InThe Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Blackmore Trust Ltd, Blackmore tried to stave off liquidation for the sum of $1.4 million owed to the IRD.  After six or seven adjournments, Blackmore finally put evidence before the Court (albeit through its lawyer, rather than by affidavit) claiming that its liabilities totalled $15.6 million, and its sole asset, the James Smith building in the Wellington CBD, was valued at $21.5 million as a going concern, or $11 million - $13 million in a "fire sale".

Khan v Reid acts as a reminder to file applications and appeals promptly.

ACC had contracted OPC to provide services. OPC's directors later established the OPC Trust, with OPC as the trustee, and 3 residuary trusts as beneficiaries.