Deep Purple was, and still is, a rock music band. Its members included Mr Gillan, Mr Glover and Mr Paice. In 2005, band members entered into an agreement with HEC Enterprises Limited (HEC) and Deep Purple (Overseas) Limited (DPO). Under that agreement, the parties agreed to form a new company named Purpletuity, to which various copyrights and other assets were to be transferred. In 2015, Mr Gillan, Mr Glover and Mr Paice commenced proceedings against HEC and DPO to enforce that agreement.
In Advicewise People Ltd v Trends Publishing International Ltd, four creditors of Trends Publishing International Ltd (Trends) successfully challenged a compromise approved under Part 14 of the Companies Act 1993.
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.
Sanson v Ebert Construction Limited [2015] NZHC 2402 concerned the successful application by liquidators to set aside payments made pursuant to a direct deed arrangement, as they were payments made on behalf of the insolvent developer. Sanson was the first New Zealand case where a liquidator has raised this argument but it is unlikely to be the last. Direct deeds are a common contractual tool in construction projects to give financiers the right to step into the place of the developer and directly arrange for payments to the contractor to ensure that t
The English case Webster & Anor v Mackay is an appeal against a refusal to annul or rescind bankruptcy orders. The appeal was based on the assertion that the petition debt was not for a liquidated sum as required under section 267(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986. The debtors were obliged, as evidenced by a promissory note, to repay a loan of £200,000 to Mr Mackay. However, Mr Mackay also alleged a repudiatory breach of the loan agreement due to the failure of the debtors to provide accounts.
The UK Supreme Court recently considered the scope of the following tests for whether a company is unable to pay its debts (as set out in section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986):
- The company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due (the "cash-flow test") and
- The value of a company's assets is less than the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities (the "balance-sheet test").
The Supreme Court confirmed that:
The recent New South Wales Supreme Court decision In re MF Global Australia Ltd (in liq) No 2 [2012] NSWSC 1426 confirmed that the remuneration, costs and expenses incurred by liquidators in preserving, recovering and realising trust assets should be paid out of the trust property generally, rather than being restricted to assets held on trust for the benefit of the company itself.
The Wellington litigation team successfully defended a voidable transaction claim under section 296(3) of the Companies Act 1993 by the liquidators of Contract Engineering Limited in the High Court in Farrell v ACME Engineering Limited [2012] NZHC 2874.
ACME Engineering manufactured and delivered a flash silencer to Contract Engineering in May 2010 and issued an invoice for it. The invoice was paid late and pursuant to a payment plan. Contract was placed into receivership in late 2010 and then into liquidation in July 2011.
In the English High Court case of Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Football League Ltd (Football Association Premier League Ltd intervening) [2012] EWHC 1372 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 163, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) brought a general challenge to the "football creditors rule".
In our October update, we reported on the Court of Appeal decision in Grant v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (see here). The Supreme Court has now declined leave to appeal from that decision.