In corporate insolvency, the role of a liquidator cannot be overstated. The choice of liquidator—a decision often riddled with strategic complexities—has significant ramifications for both creditors and shareholders alike.
Brent Norling of Norling Law and Damien Grant of Waterstone Insolvency discuss the practical pitfalls of appointing a liquidator and how to get a liquidator out. This blog post aims to distil the essence of their conversation, offering valuable insights, opinions, and advice for navigating the often turbulent waters of corporate liquidation.
The decision to appoint a particular liquidator is one fraught with implications for all parties involved in the liquidation process. Creditors, on the one hand, are generally inclined towards an aggressive liquidator. Such a professional is expected to delve deep into the company’s affairs, identifying and acting upon voidable transactions, breaches of duty, and other irregularities. This approach is aimed at maximising the return to creditors.
Conversely, shareholders might prefer a more passive approach. A liquidator with a less intrusive stance is seen as beneficial from their perspective, minimising the scrutiny of company affairs and potentially softening the blow of the liquidation outcome.
Liquidators are bound by a duty to take possession of and liquidate company assets at market value, ensuring a fair distribution to creditors. However, they also wield a certain degree of discretion, especially when it comes to pursuing directors for undervalued transactions. This discretion allows liquidators to navigate the complexities of each case, making decisions that are contingent upon the financial realities of the company under their stewardship.
The influence of referrals and professional networks cannot be understated in the context of liquidator selection. The perception of bias—wherein liquidators might favour the interests of those who refer business to them—highlights the importance of transparency and integrity in the referral process.
Changing a liquidator mid-process is a challenge, requiring a majority in both the number of creditors and the total dollar value of their claims. This task is complicated further by the presence of related-party votes, which can skew the process in favour of the incumbent liquidator.
The legal intricacies involved in removing a liquidator, especially one supported by related-party votes, underscore the complexity of the liquidation process. Upcoming regulations aim to address these challenges by excluding related-party creditors from voting and simplifying the process for appointing a replacement liquidator.
For company directors facing liquidation, maintaining positive relationships with creditors emerges as a crucial strategy. These relationships can be instrumental in securing the necessary support for their preferred liquidator, overcoming the obstacles posed by the solicitation of votes for liquidator replacement.
The liquidation process is a multifaceted and often daunting journey for all parties involved. Understanding the strategic considerations surrounding the choice and replacement of liquidators is essential for navigating this complex landscape. As regulatory changes loom on the horizon, staying informed and engaged with the process will be key to ensuring fair and equitable outcomes for creditors and shareholders alike.
At Norling Law, we offer a free 30-minute legal consultation to anyone needing help with appointing a liquidator or who wants to get a liquidator out of office.. You can book an appointment directly here.
Brent is the Director of Norling Law. He has a wealth of experience in the District Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Brent is passionate about negotiating favourable outcomes for his clients and able to implement this in his daily negotiations.
Book a free consultation to get clarity on your options and next steps
We’ve been guiding people through times of uncertainty since 2015. Talk to us for free to see what we can do for you.
