Commercial Factors Ltd v Meltzer concerned a funding agreement between Commercial Factors Ltd (CFL) and the liquidators of Blue Chip New Zealand Ltd (in liq) (Company) by which CFL agreed to lend $67,750 to allow the liquidators to obtain an opinion on the merits of claims against the Company's directors.

If proceedings were commenced, the Company was to pay 2.5% of any proceeds received to CFL.  If the Company did not commence proceedings but otherwise received funds, the agreement stipulated CFL's right to repayment after any liquidator costs.

In Day v The Official Assignee as Liquidator of GN Networks Ltd (in Liq) [2016] NZHC 2400, the High Court rejected a claim that the funding arrangement at issue constituted maintenance or champerty.

The Court of Appeal in Madsen-Ries v Petera considered the reasonableness of directors' remuneration in circumstances when a company is in a dire financial position.  Mr and Mrs Petera, directors of a failed transport business, were asked by the liquidators to repay the salaries they declared for tax purposes, because they had not complied with the certification requirements under section 161 of the Companies Act 1993 (Act), being to satisfy themselves on reasonable grounds that the payments were fair to the company.

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

The High Court recently granted an application for an exemption from the requirement to send the liquidator's six monthly report to every preference shareholder of the company in liquidation. In FCS Loans Ltd (in liq) v Fisk & Anor, the High Court granted the liquidators' application for an exemption on the basis that the cost of supplying six monthly reports to the 3,141 preference shareholders (estimated to be $4,719.16) is not proportionate to any likely benefit to those shareholders from having the reports mailed to them.

A recent High Court judgment illustrates potential issues when the same liquidator(s) are appointed to Australian and New Zealand companies.

Australian liquidators were appointed to the Cedenco group of companies, two of which were New Zealand companies and three Australian. They sought orders requiring delivery of documents and for the companies’ relationship manager at ANZ to attend for a second examination. One of the arguments against this was that the New Zealand companies' creditors were likely to be paid in full.

In the case of In Re Silverdale Developments (2007) Ltd (In Liq): Bunting v Buchanan [2012] NZHC 766, the shareholders of Silver Developments (2007) Limited (in liquidation) unsuccessfully applied to the Court to terminate the liquidation under section 250 of the Companies Act 1993.

Fairfield Sentry Limited (Sentry) was a "feeder fund" that placed 95% of its investments into BLMIS.  When BLMIS was discovered to be a Ponzi scheme, Sentry suspended redemptions of its shares and went into liquidation.  Here, Sentry's liquidators sought to have redemptions paid to the defendant investors prior to the suspension returned to Sentry's fund on the grounds that the redemptions were paid under a mistake because Sentry's net asset value (NAV) was "little better than nil" due to the Ponzi scheme.

The issues were:

Levin v Rastkar involved an appeal against a High Court decision dismissing an application by the liquidators of Western Clothing Limited to set aside several transactions by Western alleged to be voidable under section 292 of the Companies Act 1993 (in its previous form).  

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.