New Zealand is a highly entrepreneurial society.  Even during the sluggish economic growth of the past three years, we have maintained an average company registration rate in excess of 45,000 a year. 

Justice Heath issued a sweeping judgment last month limiting the ability of liquidators to examine witnesses and seek documents. In the decision, ANZ National Bank Ltd v Sheahan and Lock [2012] NZHC 3037, the Court also:

Justice Venning approved a scheme of arrangement under Part 15 of the Companies Act 1993 effecting the managed withdrawal by ACS (NZ) Limited from its insurance business in New Zealand.  The Court noted that the Scheme provided the best opportunity for an ordered and efficient run-off and management of claims with minimal disruption in relation to the company's processes.  In liquidation, the liquidators would need time to familiarise themselves with the operation of the company and would proceed on a cautious basis, which would likely result in a material delay in meeting claims.

In Sea Management Singapore Pte Ltd v Professional Service Brokers Ltd, SEA, a 50% shareholder in PSB, applied to put PSB into liquidation due to the irreconcilable deadlock SEA claimed existed at both board and shareholder levels over the direction of Conexa, a PSB subsidiary.  Associate Judge Bell dismissed the application, holding that it was not just and equitable to order liquidation when a reasonable option existed in the constitution, or under the shareholders' agreement.

The Court of Appeal has affirmed the High Court’s ruling that a voluntary administrator may only use a casting vote where the number of creditors voting for and against the resolution is equal. 

The second limb of the test, that the 50% represent at least 75% in value, cannot be the subject of the casting vote.  Nor can the casting vote be used to choose between the number and the value.

(High Court Auckland, CIV 2010-404-6381, 8 April 2011, Associate Judge Matthews)

In ASB Bank Limited v Hall, the High Court confirmed that a bank does not owe a duty of care to a creditor, director or shareholder of a customer of the bank. 

Registration will be mandatory under the Insolvency Practitioners Bill as reported back to the House by the Commerce Committee.  This is a radical and far-reaching change from the negative licensing regime initially proposed in the Bill.

This Brief Counsel summarises and comments on the Committee’s report.

The Gibson & Stiassny v StockCo & Ors litigation in relation to the Crafar receivership has clarified important aspects of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA).

The procedures seem obvious in the abstract but, as the case demonstrates, can be less obvious on the ground:

According to article 11 of Poland’s Bankruptcy and reorganisation law as of 28 Feb-ruary 2003 (Journal of laws 2009, No. 175, position 1361, as amended), a debtor who is a legal person (including, in particular, a limited liability company) is considered to be insolvent when the value of its liabilities exceeds the value of its assets, even if the debtor continues to pay its liabilities (balance sheet insolvency).

The Romanian legal framework on insolvency procedure has been consistently improved following the enactment of Insolvency Law no. 85 (Law 85), which entered into force on 21 July 2006.

Background