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.

The recent case of Re Armitage, ex parte Established Investments Limited (in liquidation) considered an objection by the Official Assignee to Mr Armitage's automatic discharge from bankruptcy. 

Bank B sought adjudication in bankruptcy of F.

In our April 2019 newsletter we reported on the High Court judgment in Mainzeal Property Construction Limited (in liq) & Ors v Yan & Ors [2019] NZHC 255.  The directors were ordered to contribute $36m to Mainzeal’s assets to be distributed to creditors.  The Court found that Mr Yan was the most culpable director and had induced the other directors to breach their duties.

In our December 2019 newsletter we commented that the Madoff bankruptcy had one more big case to go, chasing USD3.2b held by foreign banks.  The US Supreme Court has just refused to hear an application by major banks and companies, including Koch Industries Inc, to prevent Mr Picard, the bankruptcy trustee, from pursuing claims aimed at recouping funds that were transferred overseas.  In the meantime, Mr Madoff has been refused early

In Robt. Jones Holdings Limited v McCullagh [2019] NZSC 86, the Supreme Court unanimously held that it is unnecessary for a liquidator to prove that any payment actually diminished the assets of a company to claw back that payment under s 292 of the Companies Act (Act). 

Jollands v Gull concerns an application by the liquidators of a company to set aside insolvent transactions. The transactions involved funds from the sale of the company's business being paid, via the company's accountant, to three minority shareholders, which then transferred their shares to the respondent shareholders (or in one case, a respondent shareholder's family trust). The respondents' current accounts were in credit at the time.

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.

The New South Wales Court of Appeal recently handed down an important judgment on the remuneration of registered liquidators.

Sakr concerned an appeal by Sanderson as liquidator of Sakr against an order determining his remuneration on anad valorem basis, without reference to his time attendances or hourly rate.  Due to the importance of the issues, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association (ARITA) appeared and made submissions on the issue.