1 April 2026

Winding Up Applications

There will be a few instances of this saying in this article but for the first quarter of 2026 we have had the highest first quarter in the last 10 years. Comparatively we have had more winding up applications in 3 months than we had in all of 2020.

Businesses remain under the pump, with factors both inside and outside their control (war, fuel prices etc.) negatively affecting their bottom line and putting on the squeeze. Unfortunately, when this has happened in the past and when it inevitably happens again companies tend to step paying “The Bank of IRD” first. This in turn leads to the IRD debt growing and IRD taking more enforcement action driving winding up applications.

March had 90 applications for the month down on both January and February but this is a normal occurrence for March.

The IRD applications in March made up 66 of the 90, which is above their comparative march months from prior years. The drop-in appointments that put us below 2025 for March was from all other creditors chasing debts. Likely a combination of how the public holidays fell, growing uncertainty for businesses in the strength of the economy, along with the end of financial year and matters being put on the back burner for more important matters to be resolved before 31 March rolled around.

In March of 2025 there were 51 winding up applications in the month. In February 2026 all other creditors made up 48 applications, while in March 2026 they had dropped off to 24, so half.

2026 now looks like it may exceed 2025 if the first quarter is anything to go by. However, it is still early days to predict this in a year where the country goes to the polls. There remains a lot of pressure and uncertainty in the economy.

We remain a few months out from when we will get the next update from IRD on their current tax debt levels but at 30 June 2025 there was $9.3 billion outstanding. My prediction are on this growing to over $10 billion.

Company Insolvencies – Liquidations, Receiverships, and Voluntary Administrations

January, February and March 2026 has been the highest first quarter in the last 15 years for corporate appointments. Add to that October, November and December 2025 and you have been the highest rolling 6 months same time frame.

Corporate insolvency appointments in March 2026 continued the trend of coming in above their previous comparative months. So far, the first 3 months of 2026 is looking in line with what we saw in 2011 post GFC.

Solvent liquidations were around their historical March levels as stakeholders sought to squeeze them in before the end of the financial year. While insolvent shareholder liquidation and court liquidations were both 1.5x their long-term average in March.

We are still 6 months + out from November where people will start to take the wait and see approach but signs are pointing to a busy 2026 for insolvency practitioners off the back of a busy 2025.

With another month of elevated levels of court applications to wind up the number of court liquidations is expected to remain high.

The Official Assignee took 60 liquidation appointments in March, almost all of them were IRD court applications. They continue to be the busiest liquidator in the country and have also had a bumper first quarter.

Personal Receiverships

After a slow start to the year for personal receiverships when compared to 2025, March 2026 finally saw a jump with 8 out of the 13 appointments in the first quarter being appointed in March.

The uptick in Personal receiverships seen since 2024 is driven by the preference of some lenders towards obtaining a personal general security agreement from individual borrowers which allows them to appoint receivers upon default, rather than the traditional approach used by the bulk of lenders of relying on the often slower to enforce, personal guarantee to recover their debts.

Because there are no publicly available reports on the result of the receiverships, there is no register for individuals it is difficult to see how successful the appointment may be and if any funds are recovered along with what the costs involved were on each appointment. Alternatively, they may be acting as a fishing expedition to allow lenders a look into the individuals personal affairs to see what is behind the curtain and not searchable on the register.

Personal Insolvencies – Bankruptcy, No Asset Procedure and Debt Repayment Orders.

February 2026 had 87 bankruptcies, of these 54 were through the courts, quite the jump from previous months but still only a minor lift from past years and not a definitive sign that bankruptcy figures have changes and are on the rise.

At this point we continue to expect more of the same with only minor rises.

Where to from here?

After a big first quarter 2026 will be an interesting year with the public at the polls in November, based on 2024 and 2025 insolvency figures appointments should continue to track up and look to be even higher than what we saw in 2025.

If you want to have a chat about any points raised or an issue you may have you can call on 0800 30 30 34 or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

14 April 2026

Liquidation is commonly misunderstood as something that only happens when a business has failed to pay its creditors. While creditor pressure is certainly one pathway to liquidation, it is far from the only one.

In practice, many liquidations arise from non‑financial or non‑creditor driven factors. These situations often involve people, strategy, risk management, or changes in circumstances rather than mounting arrears. Understanding these scenarios is important for directors, shareholders, and advisers, as early and informed decisions can preserve value and reduce risk when it does become time to consider liquidation as an option.

Below are some of the most common situations where liquidation is not driven by creditor action that we see.

Shareholder or Director Disputes

One of the most frequent non‑creditor reasons for liquidation is an irreconcilable dispute between shareholders or directors.

This is particularly common in:

• 50/50 ownership structures

• Family businesses due to divorce, generational conflict, or succession failure

• Companies without clear shareholder agreements or dispute resolution mechanisms

Often times parties enter into business ventures with rose tinted glasses thinking everything will work out, unfortunately down the line if decision‑making becomes paralysed or trust breaks down, the business can no longer be managed effectively even if it remains solvent. In these cases, liquidation may be the most practical way forward and bring matters to a close for the parties.

Deceased Estates

Liquidation may also arise following the death of a shareholder or founder. This is often common in sole director / sole shareholder companies.

Common challenges include:

• Shares passing to an estate with beneficiaries and executors who have no involvement in the business and no ability to run it
• Disagreement between surviving shareholders and the estate
• No succession plan or buy‑sell agreement in place

Where these issues cannot be resolved commercially, liquidation can provide a fair and transparent mechanism to realise assets and distribute value. This option becomes one that can be acted on quickly when the business is continuing to trade and employs staff, this gives staff certainty on what will happen moving forward and next steps to either close the business or aim to sell it as a going concern.

Loss of a Key Person

Many businesses are heavily dependent on one or two individuals often the founder or a senior operator who have worked in the business for years.

When a key person is lost due to:

• Death
• Serious injury or illness
• Burnout or retirement

the business will struggle to continue The loss of the customer base they may represent, knowledge and know how can be crippling for the business, even if it has historically been profitable.

In these circumstances, liquidation is not a failure it is a recognition that the business cannot operate as originally structured and that winding up in a controlled manner is preferable to drifting into financial distress.

Loss of a Key Client or Contract

Some businesses rely on a small number of major clients or a single cornerstone contract.

If that relationship ends, the business may:

• Remain solvent
• Have no immediate creditor pressure
• But lack a sustainable future

Rather than trading on in the hope of replacement work, directors may choose liquidation as a proactive step to minimise risk and protect stakeholders. This is often times a pivot point where stakeholders realise they are ready to cash up and move on to new pursuits.

Strategic or Commercial Decisions

Liquidation is sometimes the result of a deliberate strategic decision rather than financial failure.

Examples include:

• A business model that no longer stacks up due to market changes or a sunset industry
• Margin erosion that makes future trading unattractive
• Increased regulatory or compliance costs
• Legislation changes making the business no longer viable
• Inability to sell the business as a going concern

In these cases, liquidation can be the most efficient way to realise remaining value and exit cleanly.

Proactive Risk Management

Experienced directors often use liquidation as a risk‑management tool, not a last resort.

This can include situations where:

• The business is still meeting its obligations but future risks are increasing
• Personal guarantee exposure is escalating
• Litigation or contingent liabilities are emerging
• External and internal funding support is becoming uncertain

Choosing to stop early can significantly reduce personal and corporate exposure.

Group Simplification and Structural Reasons

Liquidation can also arise from corporate housekeeping rather than trading distress.

Examples include:

• Redundant entities within a group structure
• Special purpose vehicles that have completed their role
• Historic companies with no ongoing purpose

• Where insurance enables solvent liquidation rather than a workout

In these circumstances, liquidation is a practical way to formally close down an entity and ensure statutory obligations are met, it also allows you to avoid the ongoing compliance costs of keeping the company in the register.

Liquidation Is Not Always Failure

The common thread in all of these scenarios is that liquidation is not necessarily about unpaid creditors or business collapse. Often, it is about:

• Control
• Certainty
• Risk reduction
• Closing a chapter properly

When approached early and handled correctly, liquidation is a useful option allowing you to make a commercial, orderly, and responsible decision.

If you are facing structural, strategic, or people related challenges in a business, seeking advice early is critical. Understanding your options may preserve value and prevent unnecessary risk.

14 April 2026

From a liquidator’s perspective, non‑registration or defective registration on the Personal Property Securities Register (“PPSR”) remains one of the most common reasons creditors lose priority and, in many cases, recover nothing in an insolvency.

In most insolvency appointments, one of our early tasks is to determine the priority of competing claims over company assets. That exercise is heavily influenced by PPSR registrations. Where a creditor has failed to register, or cannot support a registration with enforceable documentation, the outcome is often commercially severe and entirely avoidable.

Security Interests Apply to More Arrangements Than Many Businesses Realise

Despite the Personal Property Securities regime having been in place for well over 25 years, many businesses remain unaware that it applies to a wide range of ordinary commercial arrangements, including:

The supply of goods on retention of title terms

Leases of goods for more than one year (or for an indefinite term)

Consignment stock arrangements

In each of these scenarios, creditors frequently assume their ownership rights or contractual terms protect them. In a liquidation, however, those assumptions can carry little weight unless the security interest has been validly created and properly registered on the PPSR.

Registration Alone Is Not Enough

A recurring issue for businesses placed into liquidation and receivership is creditors who have either not registered at all, or who have registered but cannot produce documentation that legally supports the claimed security interest.

Valid and enforceable terms and conditions of trade, signed lending and loan documentation or financing agreements among others, with registration of a Financing Statement on the PPSR, are essential if a creditor expects to recover goods or the proceeds of sale of those goods. One without the other often provides little practical protection.

It is common for liquidators to encounter PPSR registrations that:

Are unsupported by any signed or agreed security agreement

Do not accurately reflect the terms relied upon

Contain errors in debtor details or collateral descriptions

In such cases, the registration may be ineffective and disregarded when determining priority.

Priority Is Determined Strictly

When distributing assets, liquidators must apply the Personal Property Securities Act. There are often multiple competing security interests over the same assets some valid and perfected, others not.

Creditors who have correctly created and registered their security interests will generally gain priority over unsecured creditors and, in some cases, over other secured parties when there are multiple valid secured parties the timing of registration becomes important. Those who have not are typically relegated to the unsecured pool is there is a shortfall from the sale of the asset.

For example, a supplier with a valid retention of title clause / specific security who has registered that interest on the PPSR will usually rank ahead of a General Security Agreement (“GSA”) holder and preferential creditors in regard to the specific secured assets. Without registration, the retention of title clause is generally ineffective, and the supplier will rank behind the GSA holder and preferential creditors frequently resulting in no recovery.

A Persistent and Costly Mistake

Despite the maturity of the PPSR regime, we continue to routinely encounter situations where creditors have failed to register security interests associated with leases or retention of title arrangements. In many cases, the absence of a registration directly results in the creditor losing priority and recovering nothing.

From a liquidator’s perspective, these outcomes are neither unusual nor unexpected they are the natural consequence of failing to comply with the PPSR framework.

Cost Versus Consequence

The cost of PPSR registration remains minimal when compared with the potential consequences of non‑registration. As at the time of writing (April 2026), the fee to register a Financing Statement is $16.10 (including GST). By contrast, we frequently see creditors lose claims worth many thousands of dollars simply because a registration was not made, was incorrectly completed, or was not supported by enforceable documentation. This seems a waste for the potential saving of $16.10. Creditors do not need to register every individual supply to a customer on the PPSR, one valid registration will cover the account and is renewed every 5 years.

A Final Observation from a Liquidator’s Perspective

In an insolvency, outcomes are not determined by commercial fairness, historical relationships, or what the parties believed was agreed. Priority is determined by legislation that requires the existence of a valid security interest, proper PPSR registration, and accurate supporting documentation.

Creditors who attend to these matters early place themselves in a much stronger position if their customer becomes insolvent. Those who do not often only become aware of the importance of the PPSR once it is too late to fix.