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.

Finance Minister Grant Robertson yesterday afternoon announced a number of proposed temporary changes to the Companies Act, with the stated purpose to help businesses facing insolvency due to COVID-19 remain viable.

The temporary changes include:

The director and shareholders of Rayland Investment Ltd (in liq) (the Company) applied to terminate the Company's liquidation. The Court found it appropriate to make that order. At issue, however, was the remuneration claimed by Mr Norrie, the Company's liquidator, which the Court reduced from $39,128 to $15,559.

Mr Norrie was not entitled to remuneration for unnecessary preliminary steps such as consenting to appointment by affidavit and carrying out property searches.

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. 

The High Court in Henderson v Walker [2019] NZHC 2184 found a liquidator, Mr Walker, liable for breach of confidence in relation to the distribution of part of Mr Henderson's private information, awarding $5,000 in damages. The liquidator was also found liable for invasion of privacy in relation to distributions made to the Official Assignee, although no separate damages were awarded.

Last month the Insolvency Working Group released its second and final report, dealing with voidable transactions and Ponzi schemes.  The Group's first report was released in July 2016 and dealt with regulation of insolvency practitioners and voluntary liquidations.  In the second report, the Working Group make a number of recommendations on the voidable transaction regime and regarding protection from Ponzi schemes.  In relation to voidable transactions, the primary recommendations were repealing the "gave value" part of the defence available to creditors with a view to incre

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 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 liquidators of Marathon Imaging Limited (Marathon) brought a claim against the company's director, Mr Greenhill, for a prejudicial disposition of property under section 346 of the Property Law Act 2007 and a breach of director's duties under the Companies Act 1993.  Marathon had begun defaulting on its tax commitments from 2008 onwards and became insolvent shortly after.  The Greenhill Family Trust (Trust), a secured creditor of Marathon, appointed receivers and the Commissioner of Inland Revenue had Marathon placed into liquidation just three days later.

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.