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.
Following the administration of Virgin Australia the lessors of four engines that were leased to Virgin served notice requiring delivery up of the engines to a nominated address in the USA. The administrators argued that their obligations to the lessors were met if they made the engines available for delivery up in Australia.
The Supreme Court of NSW in Citadel Financial Corporation Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 886 has made orders (in accordance with section 447A(2(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)) to terminate a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) on grounds that entry into such DOCA was an abuse of the voluntary administration process.
Five years after it refused to pay rent and took the landlord to the High Court, and two years after it was placed into liquidation on account of unpaid rent, the final branch of litigation brought by the directors of Oceanic Palms Limited (in liq) has been cut down by the Supreme Court.
The UK Supreme Court in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in liq) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical Ltd) [2020] UKSC 25 has decided that the adjudication regime for building disputes is not incompatible with the insolvency process.
In the two judgments, Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Salus Safety Equipment Ltd (in liq) [2020] NZHC 1368 and Commissioner Inland Revenue v Green Securities Ltd (in liq) [2020] NZHC 1371, Associate Judge Bell significantly reduced the amount recoverable in each proceeding by liquidators.
Both cases considered applications from liquidators to seek approval of their remuneration. In Salus the amount claimed was $91,600 and in Green Securities it was $159,044.
Former liquidator Geoffrey Smith has been convicted on six charges, including stealing $130,000 from two companies to which he had been appointed liquidator. Mr Smith was also convicted of perjury in connection with the same liquidations.
Who should bear the risk and ultimately the financial burden of insolvent wrongdoers when determining the liability of defendants to a plaintiff? The defendants, or the plaintiff?
The Law Commission revisits this question in an Issues Paper, published last week, after recommending in 1998 to retain the traditional position.1
A recent High Court judgment illustrates potential issues when the same liquidator(s) are appointed to Australian and New Zealand companies.
Australian liquidators were appointed to the Cedenco group of companies, two of which were New Zealand companies and three Australian. They sought orders requiring delivery of documents and for the companies’ relationship manager at ANZ to attend for a second examination. One of the arguments against this was that the New Zealand companies' creditors were likely to be paid in full.
Introduction
In the latest episode in one of Australia's most complex and lengthy commercial disputes, the Western Australia Court of Appeal recently dismissed an appeal by a syndicate of banks (the Banks) from a decision in favour of the liquidators of the Bell Group (the Group): Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group Limited (in liquidation) [No 3] [2012] WASCA 157.