Arena Capital Limited (Arena) was a Ponzi scheme.  Arena's liquidators applied under s284(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1993 for directions regarding the distribution of assets under liquidation.

The Court held that dividing the assets into trust assets and general assets was inefficient in the circumstances and ordered a "common pool approach."  The Court ordered distribution on a pro rata, pari passu basis.  The investors had borne the same degree of risk and it was not cost-effective to trace the numerous small contributions.

Jellie v Tannenberg Limited concerned an application by the defendant, Tannenberg, to stay liquidation proceedings against it. Tannenberg claimed not to have been served with a copy of the statutory demand or liquidation proceedings. Instead, Tannenberg alleged that it first heard of the liquidation proceedings when they were advertised in the New Zealand Herald. In addition to the issue in respect of service, Tannenberg disputed the underlying debt on which the statutory demand was based.

Under section 241(4) of the Companies Act 1993 the High Court "may" order that a company which is unable to pay its debts be put into liquidation.  While the Court retains a discretion not to order the liquidation of an insolvent company, it will not usually exercise that discretion in the absence of good reasons for doing so.

In a comprehensive judgment arising out of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the UK Supreme Court recently determined the ranking of creditors.

Principally, the Court held that Lehman Brothers International (Europe)'s subordinated debt holders were "at the bottom of the waterfall", behind statutory interest and non-provable debt claimants.

In our June 2015 update we reported on the Court of Appeal decision in which Mr Gilbert was held personally liable for body corporate levies, as a receiver of QSM Trustees Limited (QSMTL).  QSMTL owned units in a unit title complex.  The Body Corporate sought to exercise its statutory power and impose levies on Mr Gilbert personally, as receiver of QSMTL. 

Albacore Fisheries Ltd (Albacore), a former creditor of Sunsai Ltd (Sunsai), applied to have Sunsai restored to the register of companies so that it could put Sunsai into liquidation and trace Sunsai's pre removal assets.

This question arose in Queensland recently in Linc Energy Ltd (in liq): Longley & Ors v Chief Executive Dept of Environment & Heritage Protection.  The Supreme Court of Queensland found that the liquidators of Linc Energy were not justified in causing the company not to comply with an environmental protection order that required the company to maintain equipment that the liquidators had disclaimed.

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.

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.

The UK case of Cherkasov & Ors v Olegovich, the Official Receiver of Dalnyaya Step concerns an application for security for costs against a liquidator.

A Russian court appointed a liquidator to the Russian subsidiary of a Guernsey unit trust.  The liquidator applied for recognition of the liquidation proceeding as a foreign proceeding in the UK under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006.  The application for a recognition order was granted.