On various occasions during the periods 2012 to 2018, Shane Warner Builders Limited (SWBL) regularly failed to pay GST and PAYE to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.

In January 2018 the Commissioner filed an application to put SWBL into liquidation.  The proceeding was adjourned in March 2018 whilst the Commissioner and Applicant engaged in negotiations for relief which ultimately failed due to SWBL's history of failures to pay tax arrears and failing to provide substantive supporting evidence regarding the source of funds required to settle current tax arrears. 

The High Court recently granted an application under s 292 Companies Act 1993 to set aside substantial payments made on behalf of Northern Crest Investment Limited (in liquidation) (NCI) to satisfy a debt owed to Robt. Jones Holdings Limited (RJH).

The liquidators of Marathon Imaging Limited (Marathon) brought a claim against the company's director, Mr Greenhill, for a prejudicial disposition of property under section 346 of the Property Law Act 2007 and a breach of director's duties under the Companies Act 1993.  Marathon had begun defaulting on its tax commitments from 2008 onwards and became insolvent shortly after.  The Greenhill Family Trust (Trust), a secured creditor of Marathon, appointed receivers and the Commissioner of Inland Revenue had Marathon placed into liquidation just three days later.

Mr Maharaj owned a building company. Ms Nandani, his wife, owns a residential property. Mr Maharaj needed funding, which he could not obtain. However, the necessary funds were loaned to Ms Nandani and secured over her property. Ms Nandani subsequently contended that:

The Supreme Court has recently denied leave to appeal a judgment concerning the application of the continuing business relationship to voidable transactions under section 292(4B) of the Companies Act 1993.

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 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Property Ventures Limited (in Liq & In Rec), the liquidator of Property Ventures Limited (in liq and rec) obtained orders requiring the New Zealand Police to produce computer equipment holding certain company records. The Police obtained the relevant information from the offices of a Mr Henderson, following a complaint by the liquidator alleging a failure to comply with notices issued under section 261 of the Companies Act 1993. 

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Healy Holmberg Trading Partnership v Grant, clarified the issue of prioritising multiple security interest claims. The Court held the first registered interest takes priority over a latter perfected claim. The Court analysed section 66 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999, which provides that priority is determined by which report was registered first, not by which claim is perfected first. The Court held section 66 was the guiding provision in establishing which party registered their interest first.

In the case of Southbury Insurance Ltd v Black, Messrs Downey and Black, the receivers of South Canterbury Finance (SCF) successfully sought permission from the Court to be appointed liquidators of Southbury Insurance Limited (Southbury) despite being disqualified under section 280(1) of the Companies Act 1993 (the Act).

Justice Ellis recently confirmed the position applicable when a bankrupt applies for a stay of the decision adjudicating the debtor bankrupt pending appeal.

Mr Cary had been made bankrupt on 12 September 2011 as a result of a long outstanding debt to Trustees Executors Limited.  His opposition to the bankruptcy was based solely on the fact that Mr Cary thought he should be given more time to advance a proposal to creditors under Part 5 of the Insolvency Act 2006.  This was rejected by the Court for a variety of reasons, and the adjudication order made.