In the recent High Court case of McKay v Johnson & Smith [2016] NZHC 1691, a liquidator, Geoff Martin Smith, allegedly sent a notice under s 305 of the Companies Act 1993 to the bank that had security over a company in liquidation.  The bank did not respond to the notice and Mr Smith alleged that the bank had lost its security.  The bank maintained it never received the notice.

The Court was satisfied that the notice had been fabricated because:

In Shlosberg v Avonwick Holdings Ltd [2016] EWHC 1001 (Ch), Mr Shloesberg applied for an order restraining Dechert (a firm of solicitors) from acting for Avonwick (the first respondent) and Mr Shloesberg's Trustees in bankruptcy (the third respondents). 

In Stojkov v Kamal [2015] NZHC 2513 a creditor, Mr Stokjov, gave notice to the appointed liquidator, Mr Kamal, for a meeting of creditors to be called.  Mr Kamal did not call the meeting and maintained that the notice was given out of time.  Mr Stokjov reasonably pointed out that this was plainly incorrect.  Mr Kamal, despite clearly being in breach of his duty, still refused to call the meeting and later claimed (quite irrelevantly) that the cost of the meeting was not justified.

Syntax Holdings (Auckland) Ltd (in liquidation) v Bishop involved a claim by the liquidators of Syntax Holdings (Auckland) Ltd that Mr and Mrs Bishop (as directors) had breached certain duties to the company (and its creditors) under the Companies Act 1993.

In Bunting v Buchanan, the applicant shareholders sought discovery ahead of a hearing of their substantive application which involved the level of costs charged by two liquidators as a consequence of a drawn-out liquidation.

In Grant v Independent Livestock 2010 Limited [2012] NZHC 3458, the liquidators of ILA sought to hold the sole director of ILA and IL2010 (a company to which ILA's assets had been transferred) liable for debts incurred by ILA.

The recent Singapore case of Re Lehman Brothers Finance Asia Pte Ltd (in creditors' voluntary liquidation) determined that the debts of a company in foreign currency, which had been admitted in proof by the liquidators, were to be converted at the exchange rate prevailing at the "resolution date". In this context, resolution date means the day the resolution was passed placing the company into liquidation.

In Grapecorp Management Pty Ltd (in liq) v Grape Exchange Management Euston Pty Ltd [2012] VSC 112, Grape Exchange Management Euston Pty Ltd (Grape Exchange) managed a vineyard for Grapecorp Management Pty Ltd (Grapecorp). 

In Fenland District Council v Sheppard and others, FDC had spent £72,000 making a derelict property safe, which by the hearing date was worth less than half that amount. FDC registered the property improvements as an interest in the property, (indisputably) in priority to the prior mortgagee.

When the property's owner was adjudicated bankrupt, the bankrupt's trustee disclaimed the property (under a provision similar to section 117 of the NZ Insolvency Act). FDC sought to have the property vested in it, on the condition that the mortgagee's charge be removed.

In Saker, in the matter of Great Southern Managers Australia Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liquidation), the plaintiffs were the liquidators of Great Southern Managers of Australia Limited (GSMAL).