Three times in the last 12 months, liquidators have been told by the High Court that they cannot choose the “point of peak indebtedness” as the start of the “continuing business relationship” in an insolvent transaction claim. 

Of course, the three decisions are all from the High Court, and will not be binding in future cases.  The law will not be settled until the appellate courts hear the issue, and they may yet come to a different conclusion.

In Strategic Finance Limited (in receivership & in liquidation) and Strategic Nominees Limited (in receivership) v Bridgman and Sanson CA 553/2011 [2013] NZCA 357 the Court of Appeal has, for the moment, settled what constitutes an "account receivable", and this provides certainty regarding the scope of the assets available to meet preferential creditor claims ahead of secured creditors with general security agreements.

Inland Revenue is now ahead of liquidators and receivers in the queue for payment where cash is available in liquidation and PAYE is owed.

Industry practice has been that PAYE is paid to the Commissioner of IRD only after the insolvency practitioners’ fees and employees’ wages have been paid but the Court of Appeal has accepted the IRD's argument that the Commissioner has first claim.¹

Like many legal tests, the test for insolvency is easy to state, but hard to apply in practice.

The United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC)¹ has recently issued an important clarification, which confirms that an element of forwards projection must be applied – extending in extreme cases to assessments of balance-sheet as well as cash-flow solvency.

This liberal approach is likely to be followed in New Zealand, despite differences in statutory wording.

The recent Court of Appeal case of Kakara Estate Ltd v Savvy Vineyards 3552 Ltd [2013] NZCA 101 provides a useful reminder that an assignment and a novation of an agreement are different. When an agreement is assigned, the assignor remains a party to the agreement. If the agreement is novated, a new agreement is created between the assignee and the continuing party, and the "assignor" is released.

In a recent High Court decision, a bank (B) applied to appoint liquidators to the TPS Asset Trust and TPS Asset No2 Trust (Trusts). The defendants had guaranteed loans borrowed from B by their company, both personally and in their capacity as trustees of the Trusts.

The defendants had been found guilty of fraud, tax evasion and attempting to pervert the course of justice in August 2012. In July 2012 the defendants had also been adjudicated bankrupt and their company had been placed in liquidation.

In Hutchins v Edwards [2013] NZHC 336, the High Court declined an application for an adjournment by a debtor who sought further time to liquidate property in order to pay a judgment debt.

If a liquidator is found guilty of stealing money from a company in liquidation, most creditors would assume that he or she could never be a liquidator again. Not in New Zealand. A recent case highlights the need for urgent reform of the regulation of insolvency practitioners.

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.

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.