Another recent judgment in the Walker litigation concerns the validity of a litigation funding arrangement from SPF No. 10 Ltd (SPF). That arrangement is being used to fund proceedings that the liquidators of Property Ventures Ltd (in liquidation) (PVL) have brought against PwC and the directors of PVL. See our previous update on the related litigation.

In McCollum v Thompson, the Court of Appeal partly quashed the orders of the High Court (previously reported in our March 2016 insolvency update).

The Supreme Court has recently dismissed an appeal against a Court of Appeal decision on the disclosure of trust documents to discretionary beneficiaries.

In Bailey v Angove's Pty Limited [2016] UKSC 47, the UK Supreme Court affirmed two principles of critical significance to insolvency practitioners.  The first is that even if the parties should agree that an agent's authority is irrevocable, it will not be treated as such unless such non-revocation is intended to secure the financial interest of the agent.  The second is that when money is paid to an agent for a consideration that the agent knows at the time of receipt must fail because of the agent's imminent insolvency, such receipt will not give rise to a rem

Mr Kamal was appointed as liquidator of two companies of which the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (CIR) was a creditor.  The CIR applied to the High Court for orders under section 286(5) of the Companies Act 1993 prohibiting Mr Kamal from acting as a company liquidator for a period of up to five years.

In CIR v Kamal [2016] NZHC 1053 the CIR sought the orders on the basis that Mr Kamal was guilty of a continuing breach of his duties as a liquidator that made him unfit to act as a liquidator because:

In Stojkov v Kamal [2015] NZHC 2513 a creditor, Mr Stokjov, gave notice to the appointed liquidator, Mr Kamal, for a meeting of creditors to be called.  Mr Kamal did not call the meeting and maintained that the notice was given out of time.  Mr Stokjov reasonably pointed out that this was plainly incorrect.  Mr Kamal, despite clearly being in breach of his duty, still refused to call the meeting and later claimed (quite irrelevantly) that the cost of the meeting was not justified.

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.

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 Re Hurlstone Earthmoving Limited (in receivership and liquidation): Petterson v Gothard (No 3) [2012] NZHC 666, the liquidator of Hurlstone Earthmoving Limited sought orders under section 37 of the Receiverships Act 1993 compelling the receivers to provide company documents and information about the company's affairs after they had failed to comply with a notice under section 261 of the Companies Act 1993.

In Stockco Ltd v Denize the applicants sought an order to set aside bankruptcy notices on the ground that the creditor had not complied with High Court Rule 24.8(3).  That Rule requires that a certified copy of the judgment or order on which the bankruptcy notice is based must be attached to the bankruptcy notice.  The applicants claimed that the notice was defective as it was served separately from copies of the judgment.