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.
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.
The recent Court of Appeal case of Kakara Estate Ltd v Savvy Vineyards 3552 Ltd [2013] NZCA 101 provides a useful reminder that an assignment and a novation of an agreement are different. When an agreement is assigned, the assignor remains a party to the agreement. If the agreement is novated, a new agreement is created between the assignee and the continuing party, and the "assignor" is released.
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.