High Court provides guidance on voluntary administration and creditors’ meetings under COVID-19 Alert Level 4

A recent decision of the High Court provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Christchurch based company Cryptopia Limited (in liquidation) (Cryptopia) operated a cryptocurrency exchange. Account holders were able to deposit cryptocurrencies into the exchange, and carry out trades with each other.

In January 2019 the exchange was hacked and cryptocurrencies valued at approximately NZD30m were stolen. Cryptopia closed after the hack, re-opened for a short period, and was then placed into insolvent liquidation in May 2019. David Ruscoe and Russell Moore of Grant Thornton New Zealand were appointed liquidators.

A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.

We are in unprecedented times. The current COVID-19 pandemic will not only have an impact on the physical health of our country, but the economic health of our country as well. Increased bankruptcy filings are a virtually certainty and this raises concerns of many, including licensors and licensees of intellectual property. What should these parties be thinking about given the coming uptick in bankruptcies?

From the Licensee’s Perspective

Courts struggled last year to find a balance between state-licensed cannabis activity and the federal right to seek bankruptcy protection under the Bankruptcy Code. During 2019, we had the first circuit-level opinion in the bankruptcy/cannabis space that appeared to open the door to bankruptcy courts, albeit slightly. We also had lower court opinions slamming that door shut.

Below, we look at a few of the most important decisions issued throughout 2019 and analyze the current state of the law.

The Ninth Circuit's Garvin Decision

Courts struggled this year to find a balance between state-licensed cannabis activity and the federal right to seek bankruptcy protection under the Bankruptcy Code. During 2019, we had the first circuit-level opinion in the bankruptcy/cannabis space that appeared to open the door to bankruptcy courts, albeit slightly. We also had lower court opinions slamming that door shut. Below, we look at a few of the most important decisions issued throughout 2019 and analyze the current state of the law.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ Garvin Decision

In Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v PAG Asset Preservation Ltd [2019] EWHC 2890 the Secretary presented petitions under s 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986 to wind up two companies on public interest grounds. These companies were PAG Asset Preservation Limited and MB Vacant Property Solutions Limited (the Companies).

The Privy Council has rejected an attempt to block a cross-border liquidation on procedural grounds in UBS AG New York v Fairfield Sentry [2019] UKPC 20.

The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.

Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401 clarifies what is needed to establish a valid guarantee.

A Term Loan Agreement was entered into whereby Christine Regan and Mark Tuffin lent $50,000 to B & R Enterprises Ltd. Rachael Dey and Bryce Brougham were named as Guarantors. Bryce Brougham was the only guarantor to sign the agreement. The Company was put into liquidation and a demand made against the Guarantor.

The guarantor argued that the guarantee was not enforceable based on the following: