In Grant v Independent Livestock 2010 Limited [2012] NZHC 3458, the liquidators of ILA sought to hold the sole director of ILA and IL2010 (a company to which ILA's assets had been transferred) liable for debts incurred by ILA.

The High Court decision of Official Assignee v Norris [2012] NZHC 961 examined whether the Official Assignee could apply for orders relating to Mr Norris' actions as liquidator of multiple companies, and whether adequate notice of his alleged failure to comply with his duties as a liquidator had been given. 

In our October update, we reported on the Court of Appeal decision in Grant v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (see here).  The Supreme Court has now declined leave to appeal from that decision.

InThe Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Blackmore Trust Ltd, Blackmore tried to stave off liquidation for the sum of $1.4 million owed to the IRD.  After six or seven adjournments, Blackmore finally put evidence before the Court (albeit through its lawyer, rather than by affidavit) claiming that its liabilities totalled $15.6 million, and its sole asset, the James Smith building in the Wellington CBD, was valued at $21.5 million as a going concern, or $11 million - $13 million in a "fire sale".

Finnigan v He underlines the obligatory nature of bankruptcy set-off whereby once the statutory requirements that exist in section 310 of the Companies Act 1993 are met (and no exclusion applies), such a set-off is mandatory. It also discusses when a transaction occurs and the operation of the exclusion in section 310(2) that preludes bankruptcy set-off.

AML changes for court-appointed liquidators

Important changes for court-appointed liquidators to the regulations under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 (Act) will come into force on 9 July 2021.  These changes provide that, for a court-appointed liquidator:

The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.

The High Court in Henderson v Walker [2019] NZHC 2184 found a liquidator, Mr Walker, liable for breach of confidence in relation to the distribution of part of Mr Henderson's private information, awarding $5,000 in damages. The liquidator was also found liable for invasion of privacy in relation to distributions made to the Official Assignee, although no separate damages were awarded.

In what is likely to be the final chapter in the Ross Asset Management (RAM) liquidation, assuming no appeal is filed, the High Court has considered an application for directions by the liquidators of Ross Asset Management concerning how best to distribute recovered funds.  David Ross operated RAM as a Ponzi scheme for decades until the fraud was uncovered in 2012 and the company went into liquidation.  Mr Ross is currently serving a ten year plus term of imprisonment for his role as architect of the scheme.

An appeal by Christchurch property developer, David Henderson, against the High Court decision imposing conditions on his discharge from bankruptcy has been dismissed.