Torchlight Fund No 1 (Torchlight) contracted with Wilaci Pty Ltd (Wilaci) for a $37m loan. The terms included the payment of a 'late fee' of $500,000 per week.  Following default, Torchlight applied for a declaration that the fee was a penalty, and therefore unenforceable.  Torchlight also applied for directions as to the payment of the costs of the receivers appointed by Wilaci, arguing that a clause indemnifying Wilaci in respect of a default did not apply to such costs.  

Mr Pala and Mr Luthera were directors of Shanton, a large retailer of women's clothing in New Zealand.  BTC Group Limited (BTC) was in the business of supplying clothing to Shanton in accordance with Shanton's stock orders.  BTC had obtained guarantees from Shanton's directors, pursuant to which each director guaranteed the obligations of Shanton to BTC.  Earlier this year, Shanton was unable to pay its debts as they fell due and was placed into voluntary administration owing creditors over $7m.

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.

Sanson v Ebert Construction Limited [2015] NZHC 2402 concerned the successful application by liquidators to set aside payments made pursuant to a direct deed arrangement, as they were payments made on behalf of the insolvent developer. Sanson was the first New Zealand case where a liquidator has raised this argument but it is unlikely to be the last.  Direct deeds are a common contractual tool in construction projects to give financiers the right to step into the place of the developer and directly arrange for payments to the contractor to ensure that t

In King v PFL Finance Limited & Anor [2015] NZCA 517, the Kings, a husband and wife team of farmers, arranged finance from PFL Finance Limited but the loan went into default.  PFL served PLA notices but failed to serve the Kings as guarantors.  A receiver was appointed to the farming operation, who determined to cease trading the day after his appointment.

Torchlight was a private equity fund investing in distressed assets. One of its investments was the purchase of a debt from Bank of Scotland International totalling $185m, of which Torchlight had repaid all but $37m.  Being in a difficult liquidity position to pay off the debt, Torchlight sought bridging finance from a Mr Grill.  Torchlight and Mr Grill entered into a 60-day contract in which Mr Grill would provide $37m to discharge the debt.

In Erwood v Official Assignee [2015] NZCA 478 an application was made to review a decision declining to dispense with security for costs.  The applicant, Mr Erwood, argued that he had demonstrated impecuniosity, and that the Registrar had erred in finding to the contrary.

Mr Erwood held nearly $800,000 on deposit with a bank. His account had been frozen by the bank on the basis that Mr Erwood lacked the capacity to give the bank authority for the account.  The bank had formed this view on information provided to them by Mr Erwood.

The majority expressly noted that, had they not felt bound by the Supreme Court’s interpretation, they would have agreed with the minority and required the investor to pay back not just the fictional profits, but also the profits of his capital investment.

We look at the reverberations last year from Fences & Kerbs and speculate on their continuing effect this year.

Case volume

Following the determination of the substantive High Court case earlier last year (see our previous summary here), this case concerned a dispute in respect of a right to claim int

In Cook v Mortgage Debenture, Mr Cook applied to be joined to a proceeding that was being continued by a claimant company after it had been placed into administration.  The issue was whether the Court's consent was required on the basis that the application was against a company in administration (the English legislation being similar to section 248 of the Companies Act 1993).  The Court concluded that, while the moratorium covered legal proceedings against a company in administration or liquidation, it does not cover defensive steps in proceedings brought (or contin