Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

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.

When you read the papers do you start from the front or back? I usually skim read the front-page headlines and immediately flick to the back (sport) pages. It’s less dispiriting that way. Or if it’s the weekend, I fumble my way through the different sections, past the gazillions of adverts showcasing tyre inflators and hair loss treatments, before I land at the sports section. They don’t make it easy for you do those weekend editors.

Junior debt – sometimes referred to as subordinated debt, occasionally talked about as mezzanine debt – is referred to as such because it ranks behind other, more senior, debt owing by the same borrower. Junior creditors can come in many different shapes and sizes and can include shareholder lenders and specialist debt investors or funds.

Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

In the current difficult business environment, lenders will be weighing up their options in respect of defaulting borrowers – for some lenders that might include attempting to own the underlying business through a credit bid. Where debt is trading at a discount, a credit bid can also be a cost-efficient opportunity for an opportunistic buyer to acquire assets. So, what is a credit bid and what issues might such parties need to consider in using one?   

What is a credit bid?

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.

KEY POINTS

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.

Friday's Business section of The Times made interesting reading to us debt finance nerds.