Receivers are well aware that they can limit or exclude their personal liability on a contract by appropriately worded language, in accordance with the Receiverships Act. But what about litigation? Is a receiver sufficiently protected against a personal costs award if the litigation is in the name of the company rather than the receiver?
The Court of Appeal has reversed the High Court’s decision in Healy Holmberg Trading Partnership v Grant on a PPSA issue it describes as being of “practical significance”.
In a decision concerning the expiry of a subordination agreement, the High Court has indicated that the priority of competing security interests is to be determined at the time the competing interests come in to conflict.
Until recently, the PPSA did not give second and subsequent ranking secured creditors a statutory right to take possession of collateral in the event of default. The PPSA has recently been changed to allow all secured creditors to exercise this right. The recent case of Glenmorgan v New Zealand Bloodstock [2011] NZCA 672, however, confirms that all secured creditors can also rely on contractual rights to take possession of collateral. Secured creditors should ensure that their security documents clearly give them this right.
Burns & Agnew v Commissioner of the Inland Revenue and Strategic Finance Limited (in rec) concerned a dispute between a secured creditor and the IRD (as a preferential creditor) in respect of certain funds received by the liquidators of Takapuna Procurement Limited (TPL). The liquidators applied to the High Court for directions as to the application of those funds and this required the Court to undertake an analysis of the concept of an "account receivable" for the purposes of determining whether such funds could be applied to satisfy preferential claims under the Seventh
The case of Taylor and Ors v B concerned a company that imported and distributed hair care products, Cabellos Holdings Limited.
It is not uncommon for a receiver, liquidator or competing creditor to be presented with a security agreement, the ink on which appears scarcely to be dry.
If that secured creditor registered on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) months or years earlier, does that registration date determine priority between competing security interests? Or is that unfair to other creditors?
The recent administration of heavily indebted Uganda Telecom Limited (“UTL”) aims to achieve the best outcome for creditors and shareholders. Below, we unpack the implications of the administration for UTL’s creditors and other stakeholders.
With the global recession still being felt, times are tough and many companies are struggling to collect debts from errant customers or clients. In these cases, a winding-up application is arguably the most effective way to collect substantial debt as the following example shows.
In its decision in The Queen v. Callidus Capital Corporation1, rendered on August 17, 2015, the Federal Court of Canada examined, on a retrospective basis, the Crown's absolute priority regarding proceeds remitted to secured creditors from the assets of a tax debtor that are deemed to be held in trust (deemed trust) under section 222 of the Excise Tax Act (the "ETA") prior to such tax debtor's bankruptcy.