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.

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

Shephard v Steel Building Products (Central) Limited [2013] NZHC 189 is a recent decision of Associate Judge Abbott which applied the "running account" test introduced into New Zealand's voidable transaction regime in 2007.  The test treats a series of transactions as a single transaction for the purpose of determining whether a creditor has received a preference, so long as the transactions form an integral part of a continuing business relationship.

Warren Metals v Grant [2013] NZHC 263 was a successful appeal against a District Court decision that struck out the appellant's cause of action on the basis that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to review the acts of liquidators.

Liquidators’ ability to recover funds for unsecured creditors has been strengthened in one context and weakened in another by two recent court judgments.

The Court of Appeal in Farrell v Fences & Kerbs Limited¹ has overturned previous decisions from the High Court, which had considerably widened the availability of the “good faith” defence for creditors. But the finding is interim only, subject to a further hearing on a closely related issue.

Section 296(3) of the Companies Act 1993 (the Act) provides a defence to creditors who have received a payment found to be a voidable transaction under section 292 of the Act. One of the elements that creditors need to establish under this defence is that they either provided value to the company or changed their position in reliance on the validity of the payment.

The High Court has provided useful guidance as to how receivers should apportion their fees to accounts receivable and inventory.

This Brief Counsel draws out some key messages from the judgment.

Eagle v Petterson

Like many legal tests, the test for insolvency is easy to state, but hard to apply in practice.

The United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC)¹ has recently issued an important clarification, which confirms that an element of forwards projection must be applied – extending in extreme cases to assessments of balance-sheet as well as cash-flow solvency.

This liberal approach is likely to be followed in New Zealand, despite differences in statutory wording.

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal (Farrell v Fences & Kerbs Limited [2013] NZCA 91) will make it very difficult for creditors to successfully raise the good faith defence under section 296(3) of the Companies Act 1993 to a voidable claim by a liquidator.