In Aditude Advertising Limited (in liq.) v Techday Limited [2012] NZHC 1884, Aditude Advertising Limited (in liquidation) (Aditude) and Techday Limited (Techday), were members of the Bartercard system, a credit trading system.  Under this system members could exchange goods and services without exchanging cash or other legal tender.  Aditude went into liquidation with a significant credit in its Bartercard account for services rendered to Techday.  The liquidators issued a statutory demand against Techday seeking to recover the actual cash value of the invoices issue

In Aotearoa Kiwifruit Export Limited v ANZ National Bank Limited, the High Court was required to examine the difficulties that arise when a director of a company ordered into liquidation disputes that order.

Fortress Credit Corporation (Australia) II Pty Ltd v Fletcher [2011] FACFC 89 concerned the powers of liquidators in Australia.  In 2009, joint liquidators were appointed to Octaviar Limited (Octaviar) and Octaviar Administration (Funder).  Fortress claimed to be a secured creditor of Octaviar under a charge, and was owed approximately $71 million.  The liquidators arranged for Octaviar and the Funder to enter into funding agreements that provided for the Funder to fund an investigation into the actions of Fortress and to commence litigation against Fortress.

The case of Taylor and Ors v B concerned a company that imported and distributed hair care products, Cabellos Holdings Limited.

This week’s TGIF considers the most recent case involving Gunns Limited where the Full Federal Court confirmed that the ‘peak indebtedness’ rule has been abolished in a partial win for Gunns creditor.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF article considers the case of Kelly, in the matter of Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 5) [2019] FCA 1341, in which liquidators of two linked investment companies in Australia and New Zealand sought to hold concurrent hearings in the Federal Court and in the High Court of New Zealand.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF considers the case of Official Assignee in Bankruptcy of the Property of Cooksley, in the matter of Cooksley v Cooksley, in which the Federal Court granted assistance to the High Court of NZ in administering a bankruptcy.

BACKGROUND

In the latest decision in the long running Pugachevdispute, the High Court considered the effect of five trusts set up by Mr Pugachev, and whether the trusts were shams. Birss J held that he would have been prepared to declare the five trusts shams, but on the true interpretation of the trust documents and considering the powers reserved to Mr Pugachev as protector, all five trusts were, in effect, bare trusts for the benefit of Mr Pugachev.

In Erceg v Erceg¹ the New Zealand Court of Appeal ruled on the standing of bankrupt beneficiaries to bring claims against trustees. In addition, the Court considered the role of trustee discretion when determining beneficiary access to trust documentation. The decision is useful for trustees and beneficiaries alike, and provides clarity on the steps a Court may take when deciding whether or not to grant beneficiaries disclosure of trust information. Although this is a New Zealand decision, other common law courts such as Hong Kong may reach similar conclusions.

INTRODUCTION

The use of trusts for asset protection purposes is well established and – in principle – not improper. However, recent history has seen increasing attempts by creditors to have transfers of assets unwound. A recent UK Supreme Court case saw the Court effectively achieve this by way of a resulting trust finding.1 This article considers the issue from a different angle: insolvency legislation.