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".

The case of Taylor and Ors v B concerned a company that imported and distributed hair care products, Cabellos Holdings Limited.

In Stiassny v Commissioner of Inland Revenue the court considered whether the receivers of 2 companies trading together in partnership were personally liable for GST on the sale of partnership assets, and whether a claim could be made against the Commissioner of Inland Revenue for money had and received.

The High Court has released its judgment in Re Halifax NZ Limited (In liq) [2021] NZHC 113, involving a unique contemporaneous sitting of the High Court of New Zealand and Federal Court of Australia.

The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.