This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the High Court of Australia, in which a 4:3 majority held that a former trustee is not owed any fiduciary obligation by a successor trustee.

Key takeaways

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 Davis-Jacenko v Roxy’s Bootcamp Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 702, McGrath J delivered an extempore decision, appointing provisional liquidators in respect of Roxy’s Bootcamp Pty Limited (theCompany). His Honour stated that it was “a paradigm case” for the court to intervene to preserve the status quo.

Key Takeaways

Landlords might be starting to feel a little uneasy given the news that Superdry is considering a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA). Superdry is reportedly working with accountants to hash out a plan that will likely involve shutting down certain stores and cutting rent liabilities. The accountants instructed will be exploring whether either a CVA or a Restructuring Plan - both of which are processes which allow businesses to seek to reduce their liabilities to creditors – would be appropriate.

What exactly is a CVA?

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.

When do amounts owed to a company constitute ‘circulating assets’ and how should they be distributed? This crucial question has not always been answered predictably in recent cases. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Resilient Investment Group Pty Ltd v Barnet and Hodgkinson as liquidators of Spitfire Corporation Limited (in liq) [2023] NSWCA 118 has provided a framework for navigating the relevant principles in the context of a priority dispute over R&D tax refunds.

Key takeaways

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.

Once a tenant becomes insolvent a landlord's recovery options become more limited but there are important steps a landlord should be taking.

1. Check the terms of any rent deposit agreement

Check the terms of the arrangement to find out how the deposit is held and when it is available for to use. In some cases, such as when a tenant has entered into a creditors' voluntary agreement, consent from the court may be required before the deposit can be used.

2. Find out the tenant's status

Do landlords do get a good deal in CVAs? It would seem they do (if you don't read the small print…)

A few weeks ago we blogged that we were expecting RSM's research report, which was commissioned by the Insolvency Service, into the impact of CVAs on the landlords. The specific question in the research paper was: "are landlords equitably treated, compared to other creditors in large business CVAs?".

In the recent case of Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, the High Court has allowed an appeal relating to asset-based lending (ABL) and the enforceability of security associated with these loans. The High Court held that whilst asset-based lending itself is not unconscionable, certain conduct may render loans and security unenforceable. The decision is a reminder that lenders should ensure the circumstances of potential borrowers are fully scrutinised prior to lending.