The recent decision of the UK Supreme Court in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SAV & Ors [2022] UKSC 25 has considered the nature of the so-called “creditor duty” and whether directors are required to take into account the interests of creditors when the company is “insolvent, bordering on insolvency, or that an insolvent liquidation or administration is probable.”

The Sequana decision also provides guidance about when the so-called “creditor duty” is engaged.

Background

The recent decision of the High Court in Fistonich & Anor v Gibson & Ors [2022] NZHC 1422 considered whether receivers have a right to retain surplus funds to meet the cost of defending actual or forecast claims against the receivers.

Background

The case involves the sale of the business and land associated with Villa Maria winery, which was owned and operated through Villa Maria Estate Ltd and established 60 years ago by Sir George Fistonich. FFWL Ltd was the holding company of Villa Maria Estate Ltd.

The importance of subcontractors scrutinising how retention funds are held, and how they are dealt with by insolvency practitioners, was highlighted in the recent High Court decision in McVeigh v Decmil Australia Pty Limited & Anor [2021] NZHC 2929 (Decmil). The liquidator sought an order from the Court to be appointed as receiver of the retentions fund.

Liquidators have wide-ranging powers under the Companies Act 1993 (Companies Act), including the power to request directors, shareholders or any other relevant person to assist in the liquidation of a company.

In a recent High Court decision,[1] Hanlon Plumbing Limited (Hanlon) successfully obtained an interim injunction on a without notice basis requiring Downey Construction Limited (Downey) to pay retention funds into a separate trust account pending determination of Hanlon’s claim.

On 24 September 2020, the Supreme Court released its long-awaited decision in the case of Debut Homes Ltd (In Liquidation) v Cooper [2020] NZSC 100.

The main issue was whether a director was in breach of his directors’ duties under the Companies Act 1993 (Act) by continuing to trade against the background of an insolvent or nearly insolvent company.

On Friday afternoon the government announced temporary changes it intends to make to the Companies Act 1993 (the Act) to assist companies facing financial stress during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Summary of proposals

The proposed changes include:

We have prepared the following tips for businesses to guide them through the current circumstances. Urgent advice should be sought where cash flow problems are arising, or where contractual obligations may not be able to be met. The best protection is preparation.

Talk to the people you deal with

Check in with the people you do business with regularly. This will include:

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.