In Robt. Jones Holdings Limited v McCullagh [2019] NZSC 86, the Supreme Court unanimously held that it is unnecessary for a liquidator to prove that any payment actually diminished the assets of a company to claw back that payment under s 292 of the Companies Act (Act). 

Non-party costs are exceptional and are only awarded when it is just to do so and when 'something more' about the non-party's conduct warrants costs.  The involvement of a parent company in litigation and avoiding a realistic settlement is an example of the 'something more' requirement being met.  In Minister of Education v H Construction North Island Ltd (in req and liq) [2019] NZHC 1459, the High Court found that McConnell Ltd's (McConnell) actions in this litigation warranted awarding non-party costs and disbursements of over a million dollars.

In Robt. Jones Holdings Limited v McCullagh [2019] NZSC 86 the Supreme Court confirmed that the requirements outlined in s 294 Companies Act 1993 (“Act“”) are all that is required in order to void an insolvent transaction. In particular, the Supreme Court confirmed there is no additional common law principle that the transaction must have diminished the net pool of assets available to creditors.

Background

In what is likely to be the final chapter in the Ross Asset Management (RAM) liquidation, assuming no appeal is filed, the High Court has considered an application for directions by the liquidators of Ross Asset Management concerning how best to distribute recovered funds.  David Ross operated RAM as a Ponzi scheme for decades until the fraud was uncovered in 2012 and the company went into liquidation.  Mr Ross is currently serving a ten year plus term of imprisonment for his role as architect of the scheme.

In Lafferty v Official Assignee Gordon J considered Mr Lafferty's appeal of two decisions of the Official Assignee to refuse Mr Lafferty's applications under section 62(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967 to enter or carry on business while bankrupt.

Gordon J dismissed the appeal on the basis that Mr Lafferty could not show that the Official Assignee had made an error of law, failed to take into account relevant considerations or was manifestly wrong in exercising its discretion under regulation 34 of the Insolvency Regulations 1970.

The liquidators of Wenztro Co-operation Limited (Wenztro) appealed against the High Court's decision not to order Wenztro's former director, Mr Ellis, to produce and be examined on personal financial information including tax return and bank statements. The liquidators sought to assess Mr Ellis' judgment worthiness for the legal proceedings they had commenced against him for breaches of directors' duties.

We previously reported on the Court of Appeal decision in Trends Publishing International Ltd v Advicewise People Ltd & Ors. The case concerned a compromise under Part 14 of the Companies Act 1993 that was set aside by the High Court on the basis that the challenging creditors, who had voted against the compromise, had been unfairly prejudiced by the decision to call only one meeting of creditors.

Jollands v Gull concerns an application by the liquidators of a company to set aside insolvent transactions. The transactions involved funds from the sale of the company's business being paid, via the company's accountant, to three minority shareholders, which then transferred their shares to the respondent shareholders (or in one case, a respondent shareholder's family trust). The respondents' current accounts were in credit at the time.

Another recent judgment in the Walker litigation concerns the validity of a litigation funding arrangement from SPF No. 10 Ltd (SPF). That arrangement is being used to fund proceedings that the liquidators of Property Ventures Ltd (in liquidation) (PVL) have brought against PwC and the directors of PVL. See our previous update on the related litigation.

A recent decision from the High Court in the Walker v Forbes litigation also reaffirms the Court’s protection of a defendant’s personal financial information. The plaintiff, Mr Walker, the liquidator of Property Ventures Ltd, sought discovery of the insurance policy of one of the defendants, Mr Hansen, in an attempt to determine the amount of insurance cover that Mr Hansen might have to meet the liquidator's claim against him.