When insolvency practitioners consider who may be held accountable for corporate failures, auditors are often near the top of the list. It is easy to see why. From a practical perspective, auditors are relatively likely to be able to meet good claims, and from a legal perspective it is easy to identify the duties that the auditors owed and, in an unfortunate number of cases, breached.

In Aditude Advertising Limited (in liq.) v Techday Limited [2012] NZHC 1884, Aditude Advertising Limited (in liquidation) (Aditude) and Techday Limited (Techday), were members of the Bartercard system, a credit trading system.  Under this system members could exchange goods and services without exchanging cash or other legal tender.  Aditude went into liquidation with a significant credit in its Bartercard account for services rendered to Techday.  The liquidators issued a statutory demand against Techday seeking to recover the actual cash value of the invoices issue

The recent decision in The Official Assignee v Grant Thornton (2012) NZHC 2145 addressed the obligation on a company's auditor to produce all relevant documents and information upon request by a liquidator pursuant to section 261 of the Companies Act 1993.  Associate Judge Abbott held that the public interest in investigating the circumstances leading to a company's collapse trumped an auditor's claim to privacy and confidentiality. 

In Aotearoa Kiwifruit Export Limited v ANZ National Bank Limited, the High Court was required to examine the difficulties that arise when a director of a company ordered into liquidation disputes that order.

In Sea Management Singapore Pte Ltd v Professional Service Brokers Ltd, SEA, a 50% shareholder in PSB, applied to put PSB into liquidation due to the irreconcilable deadlock SEA claimed existed at both board and shareholder levels over the direction of Conexa, a PSB subsidiary.  Associate Judge Bell dismissed the application, holding that it was not just and equitable to order liquidation when a reasonable option existed in the constitution, or under the shareholders' agreement.

This case involved 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.  These payments were part of a large number of payments, not just from FSF to the Trust, but also from the Trust to FSF.

This guide introduces you to New Zealand's business and trading environment, with particular focus on legal and regulatory matters.

A recent Court of Appeal decision (Clark v Libra Developments Ltd [2011] NZCA 493), provides a useful guide to the general principles which apply to partners who do not have a formal agreement in place governing the dissolution of their partnership.

In Perpetual Trustee Company Limited v Downey & Black, the High Court discussed the effect of the liquidation process on a choice of forum clause in a commercial contract.  It found that as the subject company, HIH, had been placed into liquidation, the choice of forum clause between HIH and Perpetual (which designated the New South Wales Courts as the forum for resolution of disputes) did not automatically operate.  Instead, the question became whether the New Zealand or NSW courts were the more appropriate venue.

Recent decisions from the courts have raised the legal risk for directors and underlined the exposure to third party liability of auditors, trustees and promoters. 

As a result, we can probably expect this year to have more claims made by receivers, liquidators and out-of-pocket investors against those involved in: