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.

The Austrian Supreme Court recently considered whether the knowledge of a debtor may be attributed to a third party in an avoidance action.

Background

Austria implemented Directive (EU) 2019/1023 on preventive restructuring frameworks with the Restructuring Regulation, which came into force on July 17, 2021, and introduced (further) judicial proceedings for preventive restructuring. Practice, however, has shown that the reorganization plan in insolvency proceedings and out-of-court restructuring remain the methods of choice in Austria.

The insolvency of the SIGNA Group is the largest ever insolvency in Austria with debts reportedly exceeding EUR14 billion.

Recently, the three largest holding companies of the group started debtor in possession restructuring proceedings which allowed management to continue the day-to-day running of the businesses during insolvency proceedings. Due to an error in the timing of the proceedings, the non-operationally active top holding company (SIGNA Holding) was forced to end self-administration.

The timing problem

Austria implemented the directive on preventive restructuring frameworks more than two years ago, in July 2021. In a first ruling on the proceedings, the Vienna Higher Regional Court has reaffirmed the prerequisites for entering preventive restructuring and clarified the checks to be carried out by the courts at the opening of the proceedings.

Decision

The Court held that:

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.

Background

The impact of the opening of insolvency proceedings on options granted in combined contracts (for example, a lease contract containing a call option for the leased real estate) had been in dispute for a long time.

Decision

The Austrian Supreme Court held that call options granted in lease contracts where the option fee has been paid do not expire with the opening of insolvency proceedings, nor are they subject to the right of the insolvency administrator to terminate the lease contract.

Background

Under the deposit guarantee scheme, deposits with Austrian banks are generally protected on a bank's insolvency, up to EUR 100,000. This sum may be higher in certain cases, for example, for sums deposited from the sale of a private residential property within 12 months before the insolvency, the guaranteed amount is EUR 500,000.

Background

Voting rights in Austrian restructuring proceedings (which require the approval of more than half the creditors holding more than half of the company's debt) are often contested, as the company's assets are liquidated if the creditors vote against the proposed restructuring or debt cut.

Secured creditors may only participate in the vote with the unsecured part of their claim and must file an application for the right to vote. It was unclear whether such an application for a voting right for a specific amount could subsequently be changed.