The Supreme Court in McIntosh v Fisk upheld the Court of Appeal decision permitting the liquidators of Ross Asset Management Ltd (RAM) to claw back the fictitious profits paid out to Mr McIntosh.  However the claw back did not apply to the original investment of $500,000.

The majority found that McIntosh had a defence for the $500,000 as he had provided "real and substantial valuable consideration".  Once RAM misappropriated the $500,000 it became indebted to McIntosh for that amount, this equated to the provision of valuable consideration.

This question arose in Queensland recently in Linc Energy Ltd (in liq): Longley & Ors v Chief Executive Dept of Environment & Heritage Protection.  The Supreme Court of Queensland found that the liquidators of Linc Energy were not justified in causing the company not to comply with an environmental protection order that required the company to maintain equipment that the liquidators had disclaimed.

Another company being investigated by the FMA and the SFO for allegedly operating a Ponzi scheme, Hansa Limited, was placed into liquidation by the High Court in late November 2016.  Those investors who lost money may be interested to learn that one of the liquidators appointed to Hansa, Mr Damien Grant, is a convicted fraudster, who had also given evidence to a High Court judge and jury that was subsequently 'discredited', that an accessory to the frauds was the originator and brains behind the frauds.  Proposed licensing of insolvency practitioners may well exclude those with di

In Primary Wool Co-Operative v Stevens, the High Court considered, among other things, whether there was an arguable case that the receivers of Bruce Woollen Mill Limited (BWM) had breached their duties to a surety and whether this meant (in the summary judgment context) the surety could escape liability to the secured creditor.

Liquidator Mark Norrie has been hit with a second order to pay costs this year in relation to liquidation proceedings. In Norrie v Time3 Global Ltd, the High Court addressed the issue of costs resulting from a quashed order to set aside a transaction made pursuant to s 295 of the Companies Act 1993.

In Kiwi Best Realty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Kashkari, the sole director of a failed real estate business was ordered to pay compensation for breaching his duties under ss 131, 135 and 136 of the Companies Act 1993.

Kiwi Best Realty was liquidated in September 2014, with over $600,000 owing to the IRD. The High Court noted that the company had been balance-sheet insolvent from year end 2012.

In Petterson v Hutt a liquidator sought an interim injunction preventing any enforcement steps being taken under two general security agreements (GSAs).  In the substantive proceeding, the liquidator sought to have the GSAs set aside.

In Madsen-Ries & Anor v Donovan Drainage and Earthmoving Limited [2016] NZCA 301, the liquidators of a failed property development company, Te Pua, applied to set aside as insolvent transactions a number of payments which Te Pua made to a drainage contractor, Donovan. 

In CGES Limited (in liquidation and receivership) v Kelly [2016] NZHC 1465, the liquidator of CGES Limited brought claims against the former directors of the company for breaches of duties owed to the company.  The High Court held:

In Bailey v Angove's Pty Limited [2016] UKSC 47, the UK Supreme Court affirmed two principles of critical significance to insolvency practitioners.  The first is that even if the parties should agree that an agent's authority is irrevocable, it will not be treated as such unless such non-revocation is intended to secure the financial interest of the agent.  The second is that when money is paid to an agent for a consideration that the agent knows at the time of receipt must fail because of the agent's imminent insolvency, such receipt will not give rise to a rem