An appeal by Christchurch property developer, David Henderson, against the High Court decision imposing conditions on his discharge from bankruptcy has been dismissed.
The Supreme Court has recently confirmed that the courts will adopt "a practical business approach (as against one which is unduly technical)" to the determination of due debts when considering a company's ability to pay its due debts.
In the latest decision in the long running Pugachevdispute, the High Court considered the effect of five trusts set up by Mr Pugachev, and whether the trusts were shams. Birss J held that he would have been prepared to declare the five trusts shams, but on the true interpretation of the trust documents and considering the powers reserved to Mr Pugachev as protector, all five trusts were, in effect, bare trusts for the benefit of Mr Pugachev.
In New Zealand, a court may appoint a liquidator to a company if, among other reasons, it is satisfied that the company is unable to pay its debts.[1] Unlike other jurisdictions, that assessment is focused only on cashflow, rather than balance sheet, insolvency.
Despite initial uncertainty, the Insolvency Practitioners Bill has been picked up by the new government. It will be amended by Supplementary Order Paper.
That SOP is yet to be released. Whether the amendments follow the direction agreed by the former Cabinet remains to be seen.
The Bill is on the Order paper under the name of new Commerce Minister Kris Faafoi. Chapman Tripp has been advised by the Leader of the House that Faafoi is awaiting advice from officials on “possible amendments”.
Liquidators cannot examine directors to obtain private financial information on which to judge their worth as prospective defendants.
This position was reinforced by the Court of Appeal in a recent decision.
The decision of the English High Court in Willmont and Finch v Shlosberg clarifies how insolvency practitioners can use and disclose documents obtained under compulsion or litigation to related insolvency estates.
In McIntosh v Fisk [2017] NZSC 78, the New Zealand Supreme Court had to consider whether the liquidators of a Ponzi scheme were entitled to recover from an investor a payment that the investor had received shortly before the appointment of the liquidators.
The Court of Appeal has recently dismissed an appeal from the High Court's judgment (discussed in our September 2016 update) setting aside a compromise under Part 14 of the Companies Act 1993 after finding that the challenging creditors, who had voted against the compromise, had been unfairly prejudiced by the decision to call only one meeting of creditors.
Ranolf Company Limited (Ranolf) was created for the sole purpose of acting as a trustee of the Ranolf Trust (Trust). This was the only activity Ranolf performed and its only asset was its right of recourse to the Trust assets under indemnity.
Ranolf was put into liquidation in 2014. Earlier this year, Ranolf brought this proceeding in the High Court seeking various orders to enable it to recourse to the Trust property to meet the claims of its creditors and its liquidators' costs.