In Carey v Korda receivers had been appointed to companies within the Westpoint Group. The directors of the mortgagor companies were dissatisfied with the receivers' conduct of the receivership and sought (amongst other things) to inspect the invoices from the receivers' legal advisers, Corrs. The receivers objected to producing the invoices on the grounds that they were privileged.

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.

In the Court of Appeal decision of Herbert v New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited, the Court declined to grant Mrs Herbert's appeal in relation to the High Court's refusal to approve her creditor's proposal (see the summary in our October 2011 update).

In Rabson v Croad [2013] NZSC 3, the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Rabson's appeal of a High Court order pursuant to section 301 of the Companies Act 1993 (Act) that he reimburse $58,084.31 to a company in liquidation of which he had been a director.  Mr Rabson sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court to challenge the Court of Appeal's substantive determination on the basis that (among other things) the High Court failed to comply with section 301 of the Act which confers on the Court the power, in the course of a liquidation, to inquire into the conduct of certain persons a

Further to our November update, the Securities Markets (Unsolicited Offers) Regulations 2012 have now come into force, on 1 December 2012. The Regulations set out specific rules applying to unsolicited offers (also known as "predatory" or "low-ball" offers) including new processes, detailed disclosure requirements, and the right to cancel acceptances of unsolicited offers.

The decision of Grant v CP Asset Management Ltd & Ors outlined the appropriate methodology to be used when examining whether a resolution passed at a creditors' meeting should be set aside as prejudicial to a creditor or class of creditors under section 245A of the Companies Act 1993.

In our March 2012 update we reported on a claim under section 294 of the Companies Act 1993 by the liquidators of Five Star Finance Limited (in liquidation) (FSF) against a trustee of a trading trust (Bowden No. 14 Trust (Trust)) to set aside payments amounting to $928,937.79.

Armitage v Established Investments Limited (in liq) involved an appeal by an undischarged bankrupt (A), against a High Court decision imposing conditions that A was not to engage in business for three years following discharge at the end of his bankruptcy. The High Court had also ordered that the period of bankruptcy was to be extended for three years beyond the statutory three year period, although A did not challenge this aspect of the High Court decision.

In Gibbston Downs Wines Limited and RFD Finance No 2 Limited v Perpetual Trust Limited HC Christchurch CIV-2010-409-00176 28 May 2012, the High Court considered the effect of registration of a subordination agreement on the respective priority of two perfected security interests registered on the Personal Properties Securities Register (PPSR).

The High Court decision of Official Assignee v Norris [2012] NZHC 961 examined whether the Official Assignee could apply for orders relating to Mr Norris' actions as liquidator of multiple companies, and whether adequate notice of his alleged failure to comply with his duties as a liquidator had been given.