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.

And so, we continue the tale with the TIBs now triumphantly holding both the hard-won exequatur which expressly recognised the bankruptcy order and Trustee in Bankruptcy (TIB) and confirmed that all rights and powers were enforceable in France and judgment of the French criminal court which restored the seized criminal assets to the TIBs under the vesting provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986. However, there were still clear and untested differences to obtaining automatic recognition under the EU Regulation on Insolvency proceedings (as Recast) (RIR).

Despite numerous obstacles and challenges faced along the way following Brexit (and its inevitable impact on tracing and recovering assets of UK based debtors overseas), we last left our brave cross-border recovery specialists triumphantly holding the hard-won exequatur judgment which expressly recognised the bankruptcy order and Trustee in Bankruptcy (TIB) and confirmed that all rights and powers were enforceable in France. Vive La France!

An article for Insolvency Practitioners and other insolvency specialists outlining the challenges and pitfalls of obtaining recognition of a Trustee in Bankruptcy to enable enforcement over assets in France in a post-Brexit and post-Covid cross-border insolvency landscape.

Introduction

Claims are just another asset of the insolvency practitioner: to gather in and realise for creditors’ benefit.

Success in managing insolvency estate claims however, is all about effective risk management. As a speculative contingent asset, the risks involved in handling claims as assets are greater and this risk requires constant evaluation as the claim progresses. Here are 6 issues to have under control throughout.

1. RECOVERABILITY – WHERE IS THE MONEY?

(Promontoria (Oak) Ltd v Emanuel; Emanuel v Promontoria (Oak) Ltd; Promontoria (Henrico) Ltd v Samra; Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd v Simpson & Anor; Bibby Invoice Discounting Ltd v Thompson Facilities and Project Management Services Ltd & Anor)

Introduction

This morning, the Court of Appeal has handed down landmark guidance on how far a defendant in litigation can look under the bonnet of their pursuer's commercial transactional documents and check out the mechanical parts of a deal to which the defendant is not party.

AML changes for court-appointed liquidators

Important changes for court-appointed liquidators to the regulations under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 (Act) will come into force on 9 July 2021.  These changes provide that, for a court-appointed liquidator:

The High Court has released its judgment in Re Halifax NZ Limited (In liq) [2021] NZHC 113, involving a unique contemporaneous sitting of the High Court of New Zealand and Federal Court of Australia.

In keeping with the general theme of this 'new year', the insolvency division of the English High Court started 2021 in much the same way as it finished off 2020.

It followed up its landmark judgment in Re Tokenhouse VB Limited [2020] EWHC 3171 (Ch) (Tokenhouse) with a decision in the case of Re NMUL Realisations Limited [2021] EWHC 94 (Ch) (NMUL), in ruling that failure to comply with procedural notice provisions did not invalidate the appointment of the administrators.

The real lesson from Debut Homes – don't stiff the tax (wo)man

The Supreme Court has overturned the 2019 Court of Appeal decision Cooper v Debut Homes Limited (in liquidation) [2019] NZCA 39 and restored the orders made by the earlier High Court decision, reminding directors that the broad duties under the Companies Act require consideration of the interests of all creditors, and not just a select group. This is the first time New Zealand’s highest court has considered sections 131, 135 and 136 of the Companies Act, making this a significant decision.