In a judgment issued yesterday (Francis v Gross [2024] NZCA 528), the Court of Appeal unanimously overturned the controversial High Court decision in Francis v Gross [2023] NZHC 1107 and held that purchasers of partly constructed modular buildings (pods) did not have equitable liens (at all, and especially not in priority to secured creditors) over those pods.

In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize bankruptcy courts to confirm a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan that discharges creditors’ claims against third parties without the consent of the affected claimants. The decision rejects the bankruptcy plan of Purdue Pharma, which had released members of the Sackler family from liability for their role in the opioid crisis. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority decision. Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.

Eine Insolvenz bleibt nicht ohne Folgen für eine steuerliche Organschaft.

Es existieren im Grundsatz zwei Formen der steuerlichen Organschaft: die körperschaft- und gewerbesteuerliche Organschaft, auch ertragsteuerliche Organschaft genannt, und die umsatzsteuerliche Organschaft. Gerät der Organträger oder eine Organgesellschaft in die Krise, kann dies erhebliche Auswirkungen auf den Bestand dieser Organschaften haben – insbesondere ab der Eröffnung eines Insolvenzverfahrens.

Gerät ein Unternehmen in die Krise oder gar in die Insolvenz stellen sich vielfältige Themen, auch steuerliche. Unsere neue Blogserie gibt den Überblick.

Unternehmen in der Krise haben häufig andere Sorgen als das Thema Steuern. Die steuerlichen Belange zu vernachlässigen kann aber sowohl vor wie auch in der Krise fatale Konsequenzen haben. Diese liegen im Steuerstrafrecht und in Haftungsrisiken – auch für die Beteiligten persönlich –, die wiederum den Sanierungserfolg torpedieren und selbst zur Existenzbedrohung werden können.

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.

In recent years much ink has been spilled opining on the so called 'Quincecare' duty of care, and the limits of it (see links to our recent insolvency law updates covering the topic below). The judgment in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 was a first instance decision on Steyn J, in which he found that a bank has a duty not to execute a payment instruction given by an agent of its customer without making inquiries if the bank has reasonable grounds for believing that the agent is attempting to defraud the customer.

Introduction

The United Kingdom Supreme Court has just released an important insolvency judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 (Sequana), which concerns when and the extent to which directors of a company must consider the interests of creditors.

The United Kingdom Supreme Court has just released an important insolvency judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 (Sequana), which concerns when and the extent to which directors of a company must consider the interests of creditors.

What happens when a shady businessman transfers $1 million from one floundering car dealership to another via the bank account of an innocent immigrant? Will the first dealership’s future chapter 7 trustee be allowed to recover from the naïve newcomer as the “initial transferee” of a fraudulent transfer as per the strict letter of the law? Or will our brave courts of equity exercise their powers to prevent a most grave injustice?