Our prediction

With New Zealand’s economy in recession, we predict an increase in insolvency-related disputes and litigation over next 12-months.

Why?

A variety of factors combine to give rise to the expected uptick in insolvency-related claims:

The Supreme Court’s long awaited decision in Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd (In Liq) offers some much needed clarity on directors’ duties in New Zealand. Our initial summary of the decision and its implications is here. This article provides a more detailed review of the state of directors’ obligations post-Mainzeal.

The long awaited Supreme Court decision on the Mainzeal appeal is out, addressing issues of “fundamental importance to the business community”. The judgment essentially upheld the factual findings of the lower Courts that the Mainzeal directors had breached directors’ duties under the Companies Act 1993, and it provides important clarity of the legal principles - and practical steps - that are relevant to directors of companies facing financial difficulties.

Important learnings

Snapshot

A creditor wanting to keep the benefit of a potentially voidable transaction must be able to prove that value was given to the debtor company at the time payment was received, the Court of Appeal has held in Farrell v Fences & Kerbs Limited [2013] NZCA 91.

This FYI outlines the things you need to know about the Insolvency Practitioners Bill in its latest form. You can follow this link to access the Bill on the New Zealand legislation website. The Bill is new legislation that seeks to improve the regulation of administrators, liquidators, and receivers. It proposes amendments to the Companies Act 1993 and the Receiverships Act 1993.

Case law on the new insolvent transactions regime is scarce, even though the changes were introduced three years ago. The High Court's recent decision in Blanchett v McEntee Hire Holdings Limited examines, for the first time in New Zealand, central principles in the new voidable transactions regime.