New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Creditor protection

Legal area

Court

17 May 2019

BEST INVEST NZ COMPANY LIMITED v JAPAN BUSINESS CONSULTING COMPANY LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1101

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1101
Court

High Court

Bank evidence established that the applicant was a creditor for $1,099,900; East Wind Holdings Ltd had no director and a management vacuum creating a real risk of asset dissipation; to protect creditor interests pending substantive determination, it was necessary and appropriate to appoint interim liquidators, namely Messrs Downes and Moore, on the same powers and terms as previously appointed for related companies.
14 Feb 2018

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v VICTORY BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS LIMITED [2018] NZHC 140

Citation

[2018] NZHC 140
Court

High Court

The application for interim stay and for an order restraining advertising was dismissed because the proposed funding to satisfy the Commissioner was speculative (dependent on fresh contract deposits and an unapproved loan), presented a risk to creditors, and the public interest required the proceedings and advertising to continue; the substantive liquidation application was therefore adjourned to 2 March 2018 to allow resolution of those proposals.
9 Feb 2016

KIRKCALDIE & STAINS LIMITED v THE KIRKCALDIE & STAINS TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED [2016] NZHC 112

Citation

[2016] NZHC 112
Court

High Court

The Court sanctioned the proposed arrangement because statutory requirements and procedural protections were satisfied: the arrangement had been fairly put to a single class of shareholders which overwhelmingly approved it, creditors were adequately protected by projected retained cash and escrow provisions, trustee company participation caused no material prejudice and could be authorised under s236(1) notwithstanding s67B(2) if necessary, and it was appropriate to exercise s237(1)(f) to cancel residual trustee shares and wind up the employee share scheme; orders were made conditional on com…
22 Jul 2015

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS (WALTHAM) LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1697

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1697
Court

High Court

The Court appointed interim liquidators because the imminent receipt of significant sale proceeds created a real risk of dissipation by a director with a history of asset stripping, the appointment was necessary to preserve asset value and protect creditor and public revenue interests, and the Commissioner, as prospective creditor, showed sufficient grounds under s241; accordingly appointment without undertaking was justified and the interim liquidators were granted the powers and fee approvals sought.
13 Mar 2015

KYLE v HUAPAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED [2015] NZHC 463

Citation

[2015] NZHC 463
Court

High Court

Although Huapai's disposition of 156F was to Messrs Herring and Reeve as trustees and thus falls within s298(2), the liquidators are not entitled to recover $567,816.09 under s298 because the transfer was part of a bona fide family settlement negotiated at arm's length, creditors' positions were protected by funds available (including monies held in solicitor's trust and court-ordered compensation), and non-compliance with distribution formalities did not invalidate the disposition given s17; accordingly s298 recovery was not justified.
21 Mar 2013

CHRISTOPHER HAMISH MOORE V TASMAN DAIRY PRODUCERS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND KIWI YOGHURT COMPANY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HC AK CIV 2013-404-916

Citation

openlaw-a46ba386_3584_404a_99b9_239f5ec252a3.pdf
Court

High Court

Permission granted because Mr Moore was not a former director of the failed companies, Hauraki acquired the Piako trade mark and related assets on the face of it at market value as assessed by the liquidators, creditors were notified and did not oppose, and the risks to creditors can be managed under court supervision consistent with the purpose of the phoenix regime.
15 Apr 2010

BALENIA LTD V I V J ERCEG HC AK CIV-2009-404-002459

Citation

openlaw-cecb8602_071b_4cec_ba00_d6a6aacb91c0.pdf
Court

High Court

The application to suspend was dismissed because the applicant can prosecute the appeal without suspension, the proposed €10 million contract deposit was unproven and the contract terms made performance optional, the applicant had not cooperated with the Official Assignee and was absent from New Zealand, and there was a real risk of prejudice to creditors and the need for investigation into asset transfers; on this basis the court exercised its discretion to refuse suspension.
24 Feb 2010

PROPERTY VENTURES INVESTMENTS LIMITED V FM 3 LTD & ORS HC CHCH CIV 2009-409-001854

Citation

openlaw-41f47942_d04c_4cb6_a59f_ead6f802b29e.pdf
Court

High Court

The s236 compromise applications were dismissed because approval would not be fair and equitable: a solitary affected creditor opposed receiving only a proportion of its debt; there were no persuasive reasons to keep insolvent single‑asset companies in existence; the companies' affairs warranted investigation through liquidation; and the proposed guarantees and long timeframe created unacceptable commercial uncertainty.
28 Oct 2009

SOUTH CANTERBURY FINANCE LIMITED V THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES HC PMN CIV 2009-454-497

Citation

openlaw-745998c6_6c3a_47fa_8b30_2a5d8100c8f0.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 323(1) is contingent on a valid notice of objection having been given under s 321; because the applicant did not file a timely s 321 notice the Court has no jurisdiction under s 323 to restrain removal and the originating application must be rejected.
20 May 2009

GOODSON AND ORS V WINGATE TWO LIMITED AND ORS HC WN CIV-2008-485-1942

Citation

openlaw-769fc356_f181_4089_b976_0904c4d42f03.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court approved the transfer because the liquidator demonstrated the transfer would not prejudice Lago's creditors, would facilitate a tax‑efficient sale likely to increase returns to creditors, preserve vendor finance arrangements, would not extinguish inter se claims between shareholders, and the application proceeded uncontested.