Quote from: Labrader on May 19, 2019, 10:28:44 PM

Quote from: xtraelv on May 18, 2019, 03:04:09 PM

It is exactly the reason why they had to call in the liquidators - because they cannot use other peoples funds or continue trading if they are insolvent.

That's not true. You don't have to involve a liquidator if you want to close a business. You simply close it, pay back all the concerned parties and that's that. And make no mistake, this is a voluntary liquidation, no one forced it upon them. It clearly says so in their company filings. A question remains: if voluntary, why not first receivership but straight to liquidation? Contrasting this with all their tweets saying they are on the way to resuming normal activity?

Nope. Not allowed under the Companies Act 1993
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0105/203.0/DLM319570.html

Also I don't think you understand the terminology that you are using.

Receivership is where the assets are sold for the benefit of one secured creditor. Appointment is through enforcement of a clause in the deed or instrument that created the security.

Liquidation is where the assets are returned or sold for the benefit of all creditors. A liquidator can be appointed by the company or by a creditor petitioning the court.
Where a company appoints a liquidator costs are saved because if a creditor petitions the court their legal fees are priority debt.