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 Wellington litigation team successfully defended a voidable transaction claim under section 296(3) of the Companies Act 1993 by the liquidators of Contract Engineering Limited in the High Court in Farrell v ACME Engineering Limited [2012] NZHC 2874.
ACME Engineering manufactured and delivered a flash silencer to Contract Engineering in May 2010 and issued an invoice for it. The invoice was paid late and pursuant to a payment plan. Contract was placed into receivership in late 2010 and then into liquidation in July 2011.
In a recent High Court decision, a bank (B) applied to appoint liquidators to the TPS Asset Trust and TPS Asset No2 Trust (Trusts). The defendants had guaranteed loans borrowed from B by their company, both personally and in their capacity as trustees of the Trusts.
The defendants had been found guilty of fraud, tax evasion and attempting to pervert the course of justice in August 2012. In July 2012 the defendants had also been adjudicated bankrupt and their company had been placed in liquidation.
In Carey v Korda receivers had been appointed to companies within the Westpoint Group. The directors of the mortgagor companies were dissatisfied with the receivers' conduct of the receivership and sought (amongst other things) to inspect the invoices from the receivers' legal advisers, Corrs. The receivers objected to producing the invoices on the grounds that they were privileged.
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Healy Holmberg Trading Partnership v Grant, clarified the issue of prioritising multiple security interest claims. The Court held the first registered interest takes priority over a latter perfected claim. The Court analysed section 66 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999, which provides that priority is determined by which report was registered first, not by which claim is perfected first. The Court held section 66 was the guiding provision in establishing which party registered their interest first.
In the Court of Appeal decision of Herbert v New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited, the Court declined to grant Mrs Herbert's appeal in relation to the High Court's refusal to approve her creditor's proposal (see the summary in our October 2011 update).
The Reserve Bank has published a consultation paper on insurance solvency standards: the quality of capital and regulatory treatment of financial reinsurance. The paper outlines the attributes the Reserve Bank expects to see in regulatory capital instruments, such as permanence and the ability to absorb losses, and proposes consequential clarifications to the solvency standards to reflect these expectations.
New Zealand is a highly entrepreneurial society. Even during the sluggish economic growth of the past three years, we have maintained an average company registration rate in excess of 45,000 a year.