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.
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.
On 28 March 2020 the Secretary of State for BEIS, Alok Sharma, announced that changes would be made to the UK insolvency laws to help companies "…emerge intact the other side of the COVID-19 pandemic…to give them extra time and space to weather the storm and be ready when the crisis ends whilst ensuring creditors get the best returns possible in the circumstances".
Many businesses – from manufacturers ("OEMs") to retailers - are reliant on receiving regular supplies from third parties for their trade. COVID-19 has produced an instant global economic shock that is – inevitably – affecting global supply chains. It is unclear whether the economic effects of COVID-19 will be long or short term, but here are some of the things that businesses which are dependent on their supply chain should be asking themselves.
What is the length of the supply chain and what jurisdictions does it cross?
The Pension Schemes Bill [HL] 2019-20 (Bill) was re-introduced before Parliament on 7 January 2020. Among its proposed amendments to the Pensions Act 2004 (Act) are new criminal offences for failing to comply with a contribution notice, avoiding employer debt, conduct risking accrued scheme benefits, an expansion of the moral hazard powers and an extension of the ‘notifiable events’ framework. The Government’s stated intention is to “ensure that those who put pension schemes in jeopardy feel the full force of the law“.
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: