​A High Court finding this month that a liquidator fabricated a key document and failed to account for receipts of over half a million dollars highlights the need for regulation of the insolvency profession.

The case

The liquidator, Geoff Martin Smith, claimed to have sent a notice under section 305 of the Companies Act to the bank holding security over the company in liquidation. The notice required the bank’s election, in default of which its security would be deemed surrendered. The bank said it never received the notice.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Steel & Tube Holdings Limited (STH) against the legal basis and quantum of a $750,000 judgment based on a “de facto amalgamation” with its subsidiary company.

The ruling reinforces the message from the High Court that directors must be careful to maintain a subsidiary’s independence if they are to protect the parent against liability for the subsidiary’s debts.

The context

​Directors do not need to consider creditors’ interests when determining the fairness of their own remuneration, even after the company has become insolvent, the Court of Appeal has found.

The facts

The Companies Act 1993 requires that directors who vote to authorise director remuneration must sign a certificate stating that, in their opinion, the payment is fair to the company and setting out the grounds for that opinion.

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.

The amendment to art. 90(1)(6) of the Insolvency Act 22/2003 (abbrev. LCON) by the Public Sector (Legal Regime) Act 40/2015 was welcomed almost enthusiastically by most market agents. It was felt that the inconsistent treatment bestowed on pledges of future claims (hereinafter, ‘PFC’) would finally be a thing of the past. I myself am not altogether convinced that this is the case, being able to envisage more than one way an insolvency judge, averse to this type of security interests, can dampen the aforementioned enthusiasm by way of a not overly absurd interpretation of the new provision.

Art. 172 IA determines  the  pronouncements the at-fault classification ruling must contain, judicial pronouncements that constitute true civil penalties.¹

Thus, after classifying the insolvency proceedings as at-fault, the people affected by the classification and the accomplices, on whom the orders will fall, have to be determined. Then, arts. 172 and 172 bis IA establish that the judgment must order:

The court ruled to allow the sale of the production unit with assignment to the acquirer of the agreements involving the insolvent companies affected by the transfer of the production unit and necessary for its continuance.

According to its Explanatory Notes, RD Act (Order in Council) 4/2014, of 7 March, adopting  urgent measures on business debt refinancing and restructuring, aims to facilitate the financial  repair and recovery of companies facing an economic crisis. To this end, a set of rules varying in  scope and significance have been laid down, which I here discuss with regards to the treatment  reserved to loans granted under refinancing agreements - as provided by the Spanish Insolvency  Act (IA) - and their signatory creditors.

On March 7, the Spanish government reformed its bankruptcy law to encourage companies to restructure their debt and avoid liquidation. The decree is one part of an ongoing reform program intended to strengthen and stabilize the Spanish financial sector.  The reforms provide stronger incentives for lenders to accept write-offs, maturity extensions, and debt forgiveness for struggling companies. The new rules also reduce the majority of creditors needed to vote for a restructuring.

If severe losses and insolvency occur, the directors’ duty to seek wind -up no longer applies if the company files for insolvency and is declared insolvent. While the composition is being carried out, the duty to seek wind-up and the directors’ resulting liability will not arise.

This ruling clarifies the role of the directors’ corporate duties in the event that legal grounds can be attributed to the company for wind-up due to losses, and the obligation to file for insolvency if the company becomes insolvent.