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.
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.
A recent High Court decision in Mac Interiors[1] determined whether a company needs to be formed and registered in this jurisdiction in order to enter into the examinership rescue process.
Mac-Interiors Limited (the "Company”), which has its registered office in Newry, Co. Down, Northern Ireland, presented a petition to the Irish High Court for the appointment of an examiner. Where the registered office of the Company is outside Ireland it does not fall within the definition of a 'company' under the Companies Act, 2014 being one which is formed and registered within the State.
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.
The Corporate Enforcement Authority (CEA) has recently issued an information note, which provides guidance to directors in respect of early warning tools, director's duties and restructuring processes for companies in financial difficulty.
On Friday, 29 July the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment signed into law the European Union (Preventative Restructuring) Regulations 2022 (the "Regulations").
Although there is no technical requirement for a judgment to apply to make a debtor a bankrupt (as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Harrahill v Cuddy[1]), the Court has a very wide discretion to refuse to issue a bankruptcy summons. Therefore, an applicant will typically rely on a judgment to ground a bankruptcy petition.
Background
The High Court recently extended the bankruptcy period of an Irish businessman to a total of 13 years.
The usual bankruptcy term is one year, however this can be extended in cases of non-cooperation or non-disclosure of assets with the maximum term being 15 years.
On Monday 8 November, the High Court imposed one of the longest ever disqualification periods for a company director. The Court held that this was "one of the most extreme cases of using a company for [oil] laundering", and granted an application on behalf of the liquidator of Gaboto Limited for the disqualification of the two directors for a period of fifteen years.
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: