The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision, agreeing with receivers that certain sales by the debtor were not in the ordinary course of business, but rather payments to an unsecured creditor.

In this case1 when the debtor began to experience cash flow difficulties, it established another company to purchase stock, which the debtor would find buyers for. Sales were made either in the name of the new company, or the debtor would account to the new company for the sale proceeds.

The Gibson & Stiassny v StockCo & Ors litigation in relation to the Crafar receivership has clarified important aspects of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA).

The procedures seem obvious in the abstract but, as the case demonstrates, can be less obvious on the ground:

A recent UK High Court decision on the issue of balance sheet insolvency will be of interest in New Zealand, despite the fact that the respective statutory solvency tests differ.  

The court had made orders for examination of 4 current and former directors of New Image by the liquidators of Omegatrend.

In Katavich v Meltzer & Ors, the court confirmed that pursuant to ss 284 and 321 of the Companies Act 1993 (Act), liquidators can be removed notwithstanding that their final report has been filed and the company is to be struck off the Register.

In Nylex (New Zealand) Ltd (In Rec and in Liq) v Independent Timber Merchants Co-Operative Limited Justice Heath granted summary judgment to Nylex and rejected ITM's argument that it had a defence of equitable set-off relating to unpaid loyalty scheme obligations.

A recent decision confirms that liquidators can require creditors and other persons with relevant knowledge about the affairs of the company in liquidation to provide information.

Between 2006 and 2010, 50 New Zealand finance companies either went into liquidation or receivership, or froze payments. The Securities Commission has now released information about its investigations into these finance companies.

The information released highlights the Commission's work to date, the companies being investigated, the status of the investigations and the behaviour or act that triggered the Commission's involvement. It also answers some common questions about the Commission's work in connection with the failures, including:

In Stiassny v Commissioner of Inland Revenue the court considered whether the receivers of 2 companies trading together in partnership were personally liable for GST on the sale of partnership assets, and whether a claim could be made against the Commissioner of Inland Revenue for money had and received.

ACC had contracted OPC to provide services. OPC's directors later established the OPC Trust, with OPC as the trustee, and 3 residuary trusts as beneficiaries.