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.

The Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2024 (the “Employment Act”) was signed into law on 9 May 2024 albeit the provisions have not yet commenced. The General Scheme of Companies (Corporate Governance, Enforcement and Regulatory Provisions) Bill 2024 (the “Companies Bill”) was published in March this year and is expected to be enacted later this year. Both make significant changes to the restructuring and insolvency regime. We will continue to keep you apprised of developments regarding the commencement of the Act.

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.

On 11 July 2023, Mr Justice Michael Quinn delivered his judgment in the matter of Mac-Interiors Limited (High Court Record No. 2023/90 COS) (the “Company”), which confirmed and clarified ‘a significant and previously undecided point’ regarding the jurisdiction of the Irish courts to appoint an Examiner to a non-EU registered company with its centre of main interests (“COMI”) in Ireland. McCann FitzGerald act for the Company which brought the application.

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.

On 30 May 2023, Mac-Interiors Limited (the “Company”), a private limited company incorporated and registered in Northern Ireland, but with its COMI in Ireland, presented a petition seeking the appointment of an examiner. On the same day, orders were made, amongst other things, appointing Kieran Wallace of Interpath Advisory as examiner on an interim basis pending the hearing of the Petition.

In both jurisdictions the general consensus was that where a company is insolvent, the fiduciary duty of its directors to act in the interest of the company (Irish law), or in the way they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company in the interests of its members as a whole (English law), altered such that directors were required to treat creditors' interests in priority to shareholders' interests. Directors must consider the interests of creditors as a whole, and not just the interests of any individual creditor or class of creditors.

The United Kingdom Supreme Court has just released an important insolvency judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 (Sequana), which concerns when and the extent to which directors of a company must consider the interests of creditors.

The United Kingdom Supreme Court has just released an important insolvency judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 (Sequana), which concerns when and the extent to which directors of a company must consider the interests of creditors.

The director of an insolvent company appealed a restriction order made against him. The order prevented the appellant from acting as a company director or secretary for a 5-year period under section 819 of the Companies Act 2014 (the “2014 Act”). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as the appellant failed to satisfy the court that he acted responsibly in the conduct of the company’s affairs.