How does the objective of achieving payment for creditors in insolvency interact with the objectives of pension legislation, which seeks to ensure that individuals are adequately provided for in retirement? The courts in New Zealand and in the UK have each recently grappled with this issue. In both of the recent cases considered in this article the pensions objectives won out and the specific pension funds in question were not made available for the bankrupt individual's creditors.

A case recently heard in the UK suggests that, in certain circumstances, a claim for conversion of assets may be brought against administrators and liquidators of a company.  While the claim did not succeed on the facts inEuromex Ventures Ltd & Anor v BNP Paribas Real Estate Advisory & Ors [2013] EWHC 3007 (Ch), the case illustrates that claimants may bring a proceeding on the basis of alleged acts of conversion by a company's liquidators and administrators. 

Voidable Transactions

Can be a significant risk for businesses

When an insolvent company goes into liquidation it’s accepted that not all creditors will get paid 100 cents in the dollar.However it often comes as a shock to creditors when the liquidator requires them to refund payments that had been made up to two years before the company was liquidated.

Like many legal tests, the test for insolvency is easy to state, but hard to apply in practice.

The United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC)¹ has recently issued an important clarification, which confirms that an element of forwards projection must be applied – extending in extreme cases to assessments of balance-sheet as well as cash-flow solvency.

This liberal approach is likely to be followed in New Zealand, despite differences in statutory wording.

A recent UK High Court decision on the issue of balance sheet insolvency will be of interest in New Zealand, despite the fact that the respective statutory solvency tests differ.  

Key point

An English scheme for a company that has a "sufficiently close connection" with the jurisdiction can be proposed albeit recognition in Poland is at the discretion of the Polish courts.

The Facts

In Elektrim SA (In Bankruptcy) v Vivendi Universal (& Ors) [2008] EWHC 2155 (Comm) the claimant and defendant companies had entered into an investment agreement governed by Polish law, which contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in London. It was common ground that unlike the rest of the investment agreement , the arbitration agreement was governed by English law. In 2003, Vivendi commenced arbitration proceedings in London which were still ongoing on 21 August 2007 when Elektrim was declared bankrupt by an order of the Warsaw court.

Key point

The English Courts have refused to discharge a bankruptcy order made on the basis of the individual's presence in the jurisdiction for one day only, where Russian asset freezing orders had been broken, the Court misled and in the knowledge recognition of a UK bankruptcy order in Russia was unlikely.

The facts

A Singaporean construction company in liquidation has successfully sued one of its former directors for failing to act in the best interests of the company, highlighting the importance of directors being aware of, and protecting against, potential personal liability for breach of duty.

Directors’ liability – the risk

In a noteworthy decision to participants in the energy industry, the High Court of England & Wales examined what constitutes a valid liquidated damages clause in the event of delayed completion of a solar project. And last week in Singapore, the High Court considered the enforceability of liquidated damages provisions on termination of power purchase agreements.