New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Phoenix companies

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2014

EXTERIOR BUILDING CARE GOLEMAN LTD v TREVOR EDWIN LAING [2014] NZHC 3321

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3321
Court

High Court

The Court found s245A thresholds satisfied: the related creditors' votes (the Andrews) determined the defeat of resolutions; the defeat was contrary to the interests of unrelated creditors as a class because the incumbent liquidator failed to conduct a proactive and thorough investigation of the sale to a related entity (with phoenix company concerns) despite available recouped funds; this failure unreasonably prejudiced Goleman. Accordingly the resolutions were set aside, a new meeting ordered, the Andrews barred from voting on the resolution, and the alternative s284 removal application dis…
25 Oct 2013

CHANDRA v SHEPHARD [2013] NZHC 2816

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2816
Court

High Court

The Court held that the term "company" in s386D may be read in the plural under the Interpretation Act s33 and a purposive approach, so that a group of successor companies can qualify as successor companies for the exception; accordingly the successor company notice dated 16 May 2013 complied with s386D and the plaintiffs were granted the permissions sought to participate in the successor companies.
17 Sept 2012

GROVES v TSSN LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HC WN CIV-2011-485-2643

Citation

openlaw-0f94c7ab_79bf_4aaf_8ed0_62c0c2608534.pdf
Court

High Court

The court refused permission for the applicant to be a director because he remained in breach of s386A for an extended period after becoming aware of the prohibition, failed to act with required urgency (s386E window not used) and that conduct showed serious adverse reflection on his fitness to be a director; there was insufficient evidence to establish on the balance of probabilities that the sale achieved fair market value, but because the applicant's management role (distinct from governance) was important to the business and his governance skills were limited, the court granted permission…
12 Oct 2006

LANDBANK LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) V NZ CATERING SUPPLIES LIMITED HC WN CIV-2006-485-2300

Citation

openlaw-7a5a1815_6640_4ce7_a10f_b778b025b4ab.pdf
Court

High Court

Court was satisfied plaintiff established a prima facie case for winding up on the just and equitable ground, demonstrated urgency and special circumstances (recurrent phoenixing and risk to realisable assets), and that it was expedient under s246 to appoint interim liquidators to preserve assets pending the substantive winding-up hearing; accordingly interim liquidators were appointed.

New Zealand Case Law

EXTERIOR BUILDING CARE GOLEMAN LTD v TREVOR EDWIN LAING [2014] NZHC 3321

CHANDRA v SHEPHARD [2013] NZHC 2816

GROVES v TSSN LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HC WN CIV-2011-485-2643

LANDBANK LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) V NZ CATERING SUPPLIES LIMITED HC WN CIV-2006-485-2300