In Advicewise People Ltd v Trends Publishing International Ltd, four creditors of Trends Publishing International Ltd (Trends) successfully challenged a compromise approved under Part 14 of the Companies Act 1993.

Mr and Ms Moncur were the sole directors and effective owners of Monocrane NZ (Monocrane). Following their separation, they entered into a relationship property agreement under which Mr Moncur assumed full ownership and control of Monocrane, including agreeing to assume sole responsibility for the overdrawn shareholders' current account. In return, Ms Moncur agreed to resign her directorship, transfer her shares to Mr Moncur and pay various joint debts.

Torchlight was a private equity fund investing in distressed assets. One of its investments was the purchase of a debt from Bank of Scotland International totalling $185m, of which Torchlight had repaid all but $37m.  Being in a difficult liquidity position to pay off the debt, Torchlight sought bridging finance from a Mr Grill.  Torchlight and Mr Grill entered into a 60-day contract in which Mr Grill would provide $37m to discharge the debt.

The Australian Corporations Act 2001 provides that a company in liquidation that holds insurance for the benefit of third parties must pay the proceeds of the insurance policy to those third parties in priority to other creditors.  Insurance proceeds payable to third parties under this provision are subject to deductions of "any expenses of or incidental to getting in" those proceeds.  The liquidator of Brighton Hall Securities Pty Ltd sought directions from the court regarding the liquidator's entitlement to deduct his fees and expenses from the insurance proceeds.

The High Court recently granted an application for an exemption from the requirement to send the liquidator's six monthly report to every preference shareholder of the company in liquidation. In FCS Loans Ltd (in liq) v Fisk & Anor, the High Court granted the liquidators' application for an exemption on the basis that the cost of supplying six monthly reports to the 3,141 preference shareholders (estimated to be $4,719.16) is not proportionate to any likely benefit to those shareholders from having the reports mailed to them.

The Northern Ireland High Court has annulled a bankruptcy order made with procedural irregularities that would have allowed the debtor to escape the much heavier consequences of a debt in the Republic of Ireland.

An Ontario Court has provided guidance on determining a person's centre of main interests (COMI) for the purposes of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (as implemented in New Zealand, in the Insolvency (Cross Border) Act 2006, and in Canada).

Under the Model Law, a "foreign main proceeding" is defined as a proceeding in the jurisdiction where the debtor has its COMI, with a presumption that a debtor company's COMI is where its registered office is.

In the matter of Free Wesleyan Church of Tonga in Australia (inc (administrators appointed) Phoenix Lacquers & Paints Pty Limited v Free Wesleyan Church of Tonga in Australia Inc (administrators appointed) & Ors [2012] NSWSC 214 (13 March 2012), the plaintiff, Phoenix Lacquers, sought a declaration regarding the validity of a resolution to remove and replace joint and several administrators of the Free Wesleyan Church of Tonga which did not succeed.  The Free Wesleyan Church of Tonga in Australia was incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act 2009 (NSW) and

In Simpson v Commission of Inland Revenue (2012) 25 NZTC 20-119 (CA) the Court of Appeal held that receivers of a mortgagee which is not registered for GST must still account to Inland Revenue for GST on a mortgagee sale. This decision is controversial and pending possible resolution of the matter by an appeal to the Supreme Court, receivers of mortgagees that are not registered for GST should take legal advice as to how they should best proceed.

Fairfield Sentry Limited (Sentry) was a "feeder fund" that placed 95% of its investments into BLMIS.  When BLMIS was discovered to be a Ponzi scheme, Sentry suspended redemptions of its shares and went into liquidation.  Here, Sentry's liquidators sought to have redemptions paid to the defendant investors prior to the suspension returned to Sentry's fund on the grounds that the redemptions were paid under a mistake because Sentry's net asset value (NAV) was "little better than nil" due to the Ponzi scheme.

The issues were: