The Supreme Court, in a judgment released last Friday,¹ has overruled the Court of Appeal by deciding that the IRD stands behind liquidators and employees when cash is available in liquidation and PAYE is owed.

This decision, which upholds the payment waterfall in Schedule 7 of the Companies Act, will be welcomed by insolvency practitioners after the Court of Appeal had upset previous industry practice.

Context

Two court judgments which could significantly affect New Zealand’s insolvent transactions regime are due out soon.  When they are released, we will provide a Hothouse seminar on their potential implications for creditors and liquidators (sign up here). 

We discuss the cases briefly here and provide an overview of the current liquidation “market” based on information supplied by the Companies Office.

Directors beware – unless you are careful to maintain a subsidiary’s independence, the parent company may be liable for the debts of its subsidiary.

That is the effect of a recent High Court decision invoking a rarely used provision in the Companies Act.

We analyse the judgment and draw some practical advice from it.

Section 271

Section 271(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1993 (the Act) has been used only rarely and is unique to New Zealand law, although Ireland has a similar provision.

The Supreme Court has today considerably expanded the “good faith” defence for voidable transactions. 

Where a creditor “gave value” through the original transaction, that creditor can now defeat a voidable transaction claim by proving only that it acted in good faith, with no suspicion of insolvency. 

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that if a secured creditor votes its secured debt in a liquidation meeting, the vote is invalid – and the security remains. 

Liquidation meetings are for unsecured creditors.  A secured creditor has no vote, except in respect of debt that is unsecured.

The case

A bankrupt’s KiwiSaver account balance is off limits to the Official Assignee.  Even if it were not, the Official Assignee could not use the bankruptcy to invoke the hardship-based early withdrawal provisions in the KiwiSaver Act 2006.

This is the effect of a Court of Appeal judgment, delivered on Friday.  Although justifiable in policy terms, the decision raises issues about the appropriate balance between promoting retirement savings and protecting creditor rights. 

Significance

“The peak indebtedness rule is not part of the law in New Zealand”, according to the Court of Appeal, in a decision dismissing two appeals on an issue “significant for both liquidators and creditors generally”.

Terms of Trade

Ensure your Terms are robust

The Court of Appeal has found that receivers can be personally liable for body corporate levies accrued during a receivership.

The judgment is based on a broader interpretation of the relevant provisions in the Receiverships Act 1993 than applied by the High Court in Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert, and reverses that decision.¹    

How does the objective of achieving payment for creditors in insolvency interact with the objectives of pension legislation, which seeks to ensure that individuals are adequately provided for in retirement? The courts in New Zealand and in the UK have each recently grappled with this issue. In both of the recent cases considered in this article the pensions objectives won out and the specific pension funds in question were not made available for the bankrupt individual's creditors.