In our legal update on insolvency law issued in July 2010 we commented on the High Court decision of McKay v Toll Logistics (NZ) Limited. 

We reported on the first instance decision in this litigation last year (see here).  The New South Wales Court of Appeal recently delivered judgment on the liquidators' appeal.

Mr Petricevic is the former director of Bridgecorp and currently faces criminal charges of fraud that carry with them the possibility of a maximum of 49 years in prison.

Findings last week of criminal liability in the Nathans Finance case echo the Centro ruling from the Australian Federal Court last month and make it clear that directors must apply their own judgement in the exercise of their duties rather than simply relying on management and expert advice.

The recent case of Simpson v Commission of Inland Revenue (HC, 17/5/2011; Dobson J, Wellington, CIV 2010-485-1860) concerned the issue of whether receivers are personally liable to account for goods and services tax (GST) on the sale of six properties effected by them.

A recent judgment in the Wellington High Court makes receivers, liquidators – and, potentially, the directors of companies in receivership and liquidation – personally liable for GST on the sale of mortgaged properties even where the mortgagee is not GST registered.1

The decision is being appealed and may be overturned as – in our view – it rests upon an unusual interpretation of the law. 

Big receiverships often test legal boundaries, and the Crafar group receivership is no exception.  Gibson & Stiassny v StockCo & Ors1  is the longest decision to date on the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA). 

Although the facts are complex, the practical take-outs are fairly simple:

The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision, agreeing with receivers that certain sales by the debtor were not in the ordinary course of business, but rather payments to an unsecured creditor.

In this case1 when the debtor began to experience cash flow difficulties, it established another company to purchase stock, which the debtor would find buyers for. Sales were made either in the name of the new company, or the debtor would account to the new company for the sale proceeds.

The Gibson & Stiassny v StockCo & Ors litigation in relation to the Crafar receivership has clarified important aspects of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA).

The procedures seem obvious in the abstract but, as the case demonstrates, can be less obvious on the ground:

It is not uncommon for a receiver, liquidator or competing creditor to be presented with a security agreement, the ink on which appears scarcely to be dry.

If that secured creditor registered on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) months or years earlier, does that registration date determine priority between competing security interests?  Or is that unfair to other creditors?