New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Creditors' proposal approval

Legal area

Court

8 Jun 2021

RE URQUHART [2021] NZHC 1326

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1326
Court

High Court

The Court refused to approve the proposal because there remained material and unresolved concerns about lack of transparency and unexplained aspects of the insolvent's financial affairs (including possible undisclosed means and complex intercompany/trust transactions), which undermined confidence that the proposal was reasonable or expedient and warranted an independent investigation (e.g. by the Official Assignee) before approval.
23 May 2014

VEGAR v AORANGI FORESTS LTD & ORS [2014] NZHC 1109

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1109
Court

High Court

Prospective creditors with disputed, unproven claims do not have provable debts under s232 of the Insolvency Act 2006 and therefore are not entitled to vote at a creditors' meeting; the provisional trustee acted within his powers in rejecting their votes under the Regulations and reg 32(2) is only an administrative measure for uncertain claims.
25 Mar 2013

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V CJR VENNING HC WN CIV-2012-485-1989

Citation

openlaw-8040d769_2f0b_42bd_b25d_ce7af3b6fee5.pdf
Court

High Court

The court approved the creditors' proposal because statutory requirements were met (proper notice and requisite creditor majorities), the $175,000 advance from the Pohutakawa Trust was sufficiently assured and payable within 45 days, the proposal produced a better realistic recovery for the general body of creditors than bankruptcy, there was no evidence of misconduct warranting investigation, and no public interest reason to refuse approval under s333(3)(b) or (c).
19 Mar 2013

SLD WEBB HC WN CIV-2013-485-208

Citation

openlaw-baa2a2cf_6c05_473a_8409_a96231eaca87.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court approved the proposal because the statutory requirements were complied with, the proposal was accepted by the required majority of creditors, it provides for full payment of preferential creditors and trustee fees and a 36% dividend to non‑preferential creditors which is more than likely in bankruptcy given minimal assets, and it is expedient to approve.
6 Dec 2010

MAY YAN WANG AND ANOR V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2010-404-3177

Citation

openlaw-7905561c_ff30_4242_8f30_b1fc26a3bf59.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court refused approval because the insolvent's verified statement of affairs materially and demonstrably omitted and misrepresented key interests (notably her effective contingent/indirect beneficial and control position in the UBNZ Trust and undisclosed BVI company interests), such non‑disclosure meant the proposal did not comply with the statutory requirements (s327) and therefore approval could not be granted under s333; further, the proposal was not reasonable or expedient given the substantial trust property potentially available to creditors and the public interest in investigation…
19 May 2010

RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT (NZ) LIMITED AND ORS V SJ HEATH HC AK CIV-2010-404-1818

Citation

openlaw-d8c6a66d_fdb8_4507_9943_190981b687ca.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court approved the proposal because the statutory procedural requirements were satisfied, the creditors (representing over 95% of estimated claims) validly approved the proposal, the proposal is reasonable and delivers a significant return (~70%) to creditors, notice was given and there were no objections, and s333(4) requirements were met; accordingly approval was expedient and should be granted.

New Zealand Case Law

RE URQUHART [2021] NZHC 1326

VEGAR v AORANGI FORESTS LTD & ORS [2014] NZHC 1109

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V CJR VENNING HC WN CIV-2012-485-1989

SLD WEBB HC WN CIV-2013-485-208

MAY YAN WANG AND ANOR V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2010-404-3177

RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT (NZ) LIMITED AND ORS V SJ HEATH HC AK CIV-2010-404-1818