Arena Capital Limited (Arena) was a Ponzi scheme.  Arena's liquidators applied under s284(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1993 for directions regarding the distribution of assets under liquidation.

The Court held that dividing the assets into trust assets and general assets was inefficient in the circumstances and ordered a "common pool approach."  The Court ordered distribution on a pro rata, pari passu basis.  The investors had borne the same degree of risk and it was not cost-effective to trace the numerous small contributions.

Liquidator Mark Norrie has been hit with a second order to pay costs this year in relation to liquidation proceedings. In Norrie v Time3 Global Ltd, the High Court addressed the issue of costs resulting from a quashed order to set aside a transaction made pursuant to s 295 of the Companies Act 1993.

In the recent High Court case of McKay v Johnson & Smith [2016] NZHC 1691, a liquidator, Geoff Martin Smith, allegedly sent a notice under s 305 of the Companies Act 1993 to the bank that had security over a company in liquidation.  The bank did not respond to the notice and Mr Smith alleged that the bank had lost its security.  The bank maintained it never received the notice.

The Court was satisfied that the notice had been fabricated because:

The majority of the Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court decision (see Buddle Findlay's summary here) that the liquidators of Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) can recover the fictitious profits obtained by Mr McIntosh ($454,047), but not his initial investment ($500,000).

A case recently heard in the UK suggests that, in certain circumstances, a claim for conversion of assets may be brought against administrators and liquidators of a company.  While the claim did not succeed on the facts inEuromex Ventures Ltd & Anor v BNP Paribas Real Estate Advisory & Ors [2013] EWHC 3007 (Ch), the case illustrates that claimants may bring a proceeding on the basis of alleged acts of conversion by a company's liquidators and administrators. 

Warren Metals v Grant [2013] NZHC 263 was a successful appeal against a District Court decision that struck out the appellant's cause of action on the basis that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to review the acts of liquidators.

Under section 241(4) of the Companies Act 1993 the High Court "may" order that a company which is unable to pay its debts be put into liquidation.  While the Court retains a discretion not to order the liquidation of an insolvent company, it will not usually exercise that discretion in the absence of good reasons for doing so.

In Sea Management Singapore Pte Ltd v Professional Service Brokers Ltd, SEA, a 50% shareholder in PSB, applied to put PSB into liquidation due to the irreconcilable deadlock SEA claimed existed at both board and shareholder levels over the direction of Conexa, a PSB subsidiary.  Associate Judge Bell dismissed the application, holding that it was not just and equitable to order liquidation when a reasonable option existed in the constitution, or under the shareholders' agreement.

In Official Assignee v Spencer, Mr Spencer's bankruptcy period was extended from three to six years due to his conduct and failure to comply with his obligations under the Insolvency Act 1967 (Act). 

Mr Spencer was adjudicated bankrupt for the second time in August 2007 and was due to be discharged from bankruptcy in 2010.  However, the Official Assignee objected to Mr Spencer's discharge and asked the Court to exercise its discretion and decline to order the discharge.

In Taylor & Ors v Bank of New Zealand (HC, 14/12/2010, Panckhurst J, Christchurch, CIV 2008-409-964), the High Court held that a bank's appointment of a receiver without any prior written notice to the debtor was in accordance with the terms of the security agreement and was therefore valid.