A party must meet a high bar before the High Court will modify or reverse a liquidator’s decision, or consent to a party commencing adjudication (or other legal proceedings) against a company in liquidation (ss 284(1)(b) and 248(1)(c) of the Companies Act 1993, respectively).

Both issues have been examined by the Court of Appeal in United Civil Construction Ltd v Hayfield SHA Ltd (In Liq) [2023] NZCA 377. This case illustrates the limited avenues available for a contractor to resolve payment of outstanding debts after a principal goes into liquidation.

In Meltzer and Lamacraft v Amstar New Zealand Ltd the High Court highlighted the interplay between insolvency and construction adjudication issues.

The High Court in Meltzer and Lamacraft v Amstar New Zealand Ltd [2020] NZHC 3510 has confirmed that a payee cannot enforce an adjudication determination and may not be able to maintain charging orders if the payer goes into administration.

Following our previous updates (Ebert Construction Receivership – What You Need to Know and Ebert Construction – Receivership and Liquidation), on 12 November 2018 the High Court ordered that the Receivers of Ebert Construction Ltd (in rec and liq) (Ebert) be appointed as the receivers

Introduction

Following our Initial Note, the receivers of Ebert Construction Ltd (Ebert) released their first report on 1 October 2018. Then, on 3 October 2018, Ebert put itself into liquidation, with the liquidators subsequently issuing their first report on 10 October 2018. These developments have provided further information about Ebert’s financial position and the insolvency process.

What is currently known?

On 31 July 2018 Ebert Construction Ltd (Ebert) was placed into receivership. John Fisk, Lara Bennett, and Richard Longman from PwC have been appointed receivers. The receivership was announced the following day.

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.