The English High Court in Powertrain Ltd, Re [2015] EWHC B26 considered the issue of whether a liquidator should be authorised to effect further distributions in favour of a company's known creditors without regard to possible further claims that could emerge against the company. 

The Court noted that there is a balance to be struck between the desirability of distributing assets to known creditors sooner rather than later and the potential injustice of leaving someone who has a valid claim with no effective remedy.

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.

The English case Webster & Anor v Mackay is an appeal against a refusal to annul or rescind bankruptcy orders. The appeal was based on the assertion that the petition debt was not for a liquidated sum as required under section 267(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986. The debtors were obliged, as evidenced by a promissory note, to repay a loan of £200,000 to Mr Mackay. However, Mr Mackay also alleged a repudiatory breach of the loan agreement due to the failure of the debtors to provide accounts. 

The UK Supreme Court recently considered the scope of the following tests for whether a company is unable to pay its debts (as set out in section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986):

• The company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due (the "cash-flow test") and
• The value of a company's assets is less than the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities (the "balance-sheet test").

The Supreme Court confirmed that:

In Hutchins v Edwards [2013] NZHC 336, the High Court declined an application for an adjournment by a debtor who sought further time to liquidate property in order to pay a judgment debt.

In a recent High Court decision, a bank (B) applied to appoint liquidators to the TPS Asset Trust and TPS Asset No2 Trust (Trusts). The defendants had guaranteed loans borrowed from B by their company, both personally and in their capacity as trustees of the Trusts.

The defendants had been found guilty of fraud, tax evasion and attempting to pervert the course of justice in August 2012. In July 2012 the defendants had also been adjudicated bankrupt and their company had been placed in liquidation.

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).

In Wilson v APG Holdings Ltd (In Liquidation), Mrs Rita Wilson (Mrs W) received amounts totalling approximately $1m from APG Holdings Limited (in liquidation) (APG) of which her husband, Mr Terry Wilson (Mr W), was a director.  In a defence against a summary judgment application, Mrs W argued in the HC that the amounts in question were payments of Mr W's salary from APG, that she had not borrowed any money from APG and that the payments did not fall within the scope of section 298(2) of the Companies Act 1993 (CA 93).

In Capital + Merchant Finance Limited (in receivership) v Vision Securities Limited (in receivership) our Wellington commercial litigation team was successful in the Court of Appeal on a defendant's summary judgment application involving the interpretation of a subordination clause in a Security Trust Deed (Deed).

The recent case of Re Armitage, ex parte Established Investments Limited (in liquidation) considered an objection by the Official Assignee to Mr Armitage's automatic discharge from bankruptcy.