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.

Landlords are often among the very first to feel the impacts of their tenant’s financial woes. In today’s unpredictable economic environment, many businesses are forced to shut their stores temporarily while the risks of COVID-19 continue to play out. Within the last few days many large and small retailers have unilaterally announced publicly that they would not be paying upcoming rent. In these unprecedented times, landlords must be aware of the risks they face in light of what is certain to be a previously unheard of level of tenant defaults.

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.

In an effort to broaden his appeal to members of the left-leaning electorate, Joe Biden endorsed Senator Elizabeth Warren’s bankruptcy plan during this past weekend. Ms. Warren’s plan, a material piece of the platform from her former presidential bid, is focused on protecting struggling individual consumers by reducing bankruptcy costs, streamlining the process, and expanding debt forgiveness. Like many of her plans, Ms. Warren’s bankruptcy plan is detailed and generally includes the following proposals:

On April 4, 2020, the State of New York will join ranks with the vast majority of other states implementing a version of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (the “UVTA”). Only Maryland continues to apply the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act (the “UFCA”), a law with its origins as early as 1918. A handful of other states that did not adopt the UFCA instead retain their varied, state-specific transfer laws. The uniform legislation was first promulgated in 1984 as an amendment to the UFCA, referred to as the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”).

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: