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 Court of Appeal last week extended the armoury available to liquidators seeking to unwind a voidable transaction. Although the Companies Act sets out a procedure for liquidators to follow, the Court held that this is not exclusive, and that liquidators can also serve a statutory demand seeking payment of a voidable debt. Is this a shortcut likely to save costs, or is it a false economy?

The voidable claim

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.

In Dench v Gates, the New Zealand High Court considered its inherent jurisdiction to set aside a bankruptcy notice to prevent an abuse of process. Mrs Gates, the judgment debtor, had applied to the High Court to set aside a bankruptcy notice. The bankruptcy notice was based on an award of costs against Mrs Gates in respect of earlier District Court litigation initiated by her against Mr Dench, a solicitor, on the basis that he had conducted himself dishonestly while representing his client in a separate matter, in which Mrs Gates was the plaintiff.

Tegel sought summary judgment against Mr and Mrs Arnensen as guarantors of the obligations of Coastal Cuisine NZ Limited (In Receivership). The Arnensen's argued (in reliance on the equitable doctrine of marshalling) that Tegel ought not to be allowed to pursue the guarantees until the receivership of Coastal Cuisine had run its course.

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.

A recent decision of the High Court suggests that a creditor who has not objected to a notice given under section 292 of the Companies Act may be able to defend the claim at a later stage.

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.