When Cash is King but it's running short - what do directors need to know?
The general sentiment for 2024 is that challenges still lie ahead for business owners before things will improve. How will those challenges impact your business?
Directors need to be aware that in times of doubtful solvency the law requires them to at least have regard to the interests of creditors as well as shareholders, and getting it wrong can attract significant personal liability.
In Arab v Pan, in the matter of Pan (No 3) [2024] FCA 563, the Federal Court of Australia addressed critical issues concerning the scope and compliance of summonses for production in bankruptcy, which will also impact corporate insolvency proceedings and such proceedings in other common law jurisdictions.
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:
This article considers the New South Wales Supreme Court’s decision to grant leave to proceed against non-appearing foreign defendants, which were in foreign insolvency proceedings.
There has been a significant growth of litigation in Australia where there is at least one foreign defendant. This is unsurprising given the growing number of international agreements under which the parties govern their contract under Australian law and expressly agree to Australian court jurisdiction, and the volume of global trade with Australia and foreign direct investment.
"Job-Cuts", "Lay-Offs" and "Restructures" are all common words that have recently featured in global media reports. It is no different in New Zealand, with a number of companies making cost-saving measures including shrinking their pool of employees. Restructures and redundancies can be difficult and sometimes messy processes and are not easy for anyone involved. Even more so, New Zealand has robust employment legislation that includes multiple safeguards that should be considered before a lawful decision is made to disestablish a role.
A party must meet a high bar before the High Court will modify or reverse a liquidator’s decision, or consent to a party commencing adjudication (or other legal proceedings) against a company in liquidation (ss 284(1)(b) and 248(1)(c) of the Companies Act 1993, respectively).
Both issues have been examined by the Court of Appeal in United Civil Construction Ltd v Hayfield SHA Ltd (In Liq) [2023] NZCA 377. This case illustrates the limited avenues available for a contractor to resolve payment of outstanding debts after a principal goes into liquidation.
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.
Deciding the parameters of directors' personal liability for actions, or omissions, when a company continues to trade while it is or near insolvent requires a balance to be struck between allowing directors latitude to try to rescue the company and protecting the company's creditors.
This morning, after much anticipation, the Supreme Court has released its judgment in Yan v Mainzeal Property Construction Limited (in liq) [2023] NZSC 113, largely upholding the Court of Appeal's decision, and awarding damages of $39.8m against the directors collectively, with specified limits for certain directors. The decision signals that a strong emphasis on 'creditor protection' is now embedded in New Zealand company law.
The Supreme Court has brought the Mainzeal saga to an end by holding the directors liable and awarding compensation of $39.8 million (plus 10 years of interest). The outcome effectively endorses the lower courts' criticisms of the directors' conduct and awards a similar amount of compensation to that of the High Court in February 2019.