In Robt Jones Holdings Limited v McCullagh (2019 NZSC 86) the Supreme Court confirmed that the requirements outlined in Section 292 of the Companies Act 1993 are all that is required in order to void an insolvent transaction. In particular, the Supreme Court confirmed that there is no additional common law principle stating that the transaction must have diminished the net pool of assets available to creditors.

Facts

The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.

The much anticipated Mainzeal judgment is released

In Robt. Jones Holdings Limited v McCullagh [2019] NZSC 86, the Supreme Court unanimously held that it is unnecessary for a liquidator to prove that any payment actually diminished the assets of a company to claw back that payment under s 292 of the Companies Act (Act). 

Non-party costs are exceptional and are only awarded when it is just to do so and when 'something more' about the non-party's conduct warrants costs.  The involvement of a parent company in litigation and avoiding a realistic settlement is an example of the 'something more' requirement being met.  In Minister of Education v H Construction North Island Ltd (in req and liq) [2019] NZHC 1459, the High Court found that McConnell Ltd's (McConnell) actions in this litigation warranted awarding non-party costs and disbursements of over a million dollars.

In Robt. Jones Holdings Limited v McCullagh [2019] NZSC 86 the Supreme Court confirmed that the requirements outlined in s 294 Companies Act 1993 (“Act“”) are all that is required in order to void an insolvent transaction. In particular, the Supreme Court confirmed there is no additional common law principle that the transaction must have diminished the net pool of assets available to creditors.

Background

Jollands v Gull concerns an application by the liquidators of a company to set aside insolvent transactions. The transactions involved funds from the sale of the company's business being paid, via the company's accountant, to three minority shareholders, which then transferred their shares to the respondent shareholders (or in one case, a respondent shareholder's family trust). The respondents' current accounts were in credit at the time.

The case of Hollis & Somerville v Total Debt Solutions (2009) Limited concerned an application by the liquidators of a company for directions that the liquidators could have recourse to all trust monies received by the company to meet their fees and expenses incurred in the liquidation.

ELT Recycling (NZ) Ltd (ELT) is a company in the business of scrap tyre collection and recycling. The shareholders of ELT had ongoing financial disputes with one of ELT's shareholders, Mr Adams, who was responsible for development of the intellectual property. Adams issued an invoice to ELT as remuneration for his services and when the other shareholders (the Zhang interests) refused to pay, Adams took steps to pass a 'resolution' to liquidate ELT and appoint Mr Imran Kamal as liquidator.

In New Zealand, a court may appoint a liquidator to a company if, among other reasons, it is satisfied that the company is unable to pay its debts.[1] Unlike other jurisdictions, that assessment is focused only on cashflow, rather than balance sheet, insolvency.