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.

The High Court recently granted an application for an exemption from the requirement to send the liquidator's six monthly report to every preference shareholder of the company in liquidation. In FCS Loans Ltd (in liq) v Fisk & Anor, the High Court granted the liquidators' application for an exemption on the basis that the cost of supplying six monthly reports to the 3,141 preference shareholders (estimated to be $4,719.16) is not proportionate to any likely benefit to those shareholders from having the reports mailed to them.

Liquidators must seek a court order to recover an insolvent transaction – even where the creditor has not objected in time to a notice under section 294 of the Companies Act.

The importance of following the prescribed procedure was recently reinforced by the High Court.¹

We look at the decision and the conclusions to be drawn from it.

The case

The High Court has held that liquidators cannot rely on the common law to recover insolvent transactions, and must now proceed under the statutory provisions of the Companies Act.

In Grant v Lotus Gardens Limited, the liquidators of Quantum Grow Limited applied unsuccessfully for an order that Lotus Gardens Limited be put into liquidation on the grounds that it was unable to pay its debts, asserting that Lotus Gardens owed it $25,000 being the amount of preferential payments made to them.

Receivers are well aware that they can limit or exclude their personal liability on a contract by appropriately worded language, in accordance with the Receiverships Act. But what about litigation? Is a receiver sufficiently protected against a personal costs award if the litigation is in the name of the company rather than the receiver?

The “good faith” defence for creditors facing insolvent transaction claims has now been fully explored by the Court of Appeal in two separate judgments relating to the Farrell v Fences and Kerbs Limited¹ litigation – and has been confirmed on all points to have narrow application.

Confirmation by the Court of Appeal that “accounts receivable” are more than just book debts and include other legally enforceable monetary obligations owed to a company will provide welcome certainty to receivers and liquidators.

The issue is significant because it determines the assets available to pay preferential claims.

In Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Property Ventures Limited (in Liq & In Rec), the liquidator of Property Ventures Limited (in liq and rec) obtained orders requiring the New Zealand Police to produce computer equipment holding certain company records. The Police obtained the relevant information from the offices of a Mr Henderson, following a complaint by the liquidator alleging a failure to comply with notices issued under section 261 of the Companies Act 1993. 

On 25 July 2013 the Court of Appeal issued its final judgment in Farrell v Fences & Kerbs Limited [2013] NZCA 329. The final judgment related to three conjoined appeals in which an interim judgment had been delivered on 27 March 2013 (Farrell v Fences & Kerbs Limited [2013] 3 NZLR 82). The interim judgment held that to rely on the defence to setting aside a voidable transaction in section 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 "new value" was required to be given at the time the payment that is sought to be set aside was made.

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.