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.
The mere existence of a secured remedy against another party is not a substantial ground for refusing to allow a creditor to pursue a remedy against a guarantor.
A liquidator may assign to a third party funder, among other things:
- the rights that are conferred on the liquidator under statute to bring a claim on behalf of the company. For example, rights accruing to the liquidator under the voidable transaction provisions of the Companies Act 1993
- a company's rights that exist at the time of liquidation.
Bank B sought adjudication in bankruptcy of F.
The residual powers that directors of a company in receivership have to commence a claim by that company without the receivers' consent were recently considered by the High Court.
[2007] NZCA 122
Decision of The Court Of Appeal of New Zealand on Sham and Alter Ego Trusts
Facts and Decision