Contractor insolvencies are continuing in the construction industry in 2024. This follows recent challenges relating to supply chain issues, labour shortages, and increased material costs. Such challenges are part of the broader macroeconomic climate of high inflation and interest rates.

We outline below steps that a Principal can take at different stages of a project to mitigate the impact of Contractor insolvency on its project, and to protect its interests.

Key takeaways

Our prediction

With New Zealand’s economy in recession, we predict an increase in insolvency-related disputes and litigation over next 12-months.

Why?

A variety of factors combine to give rise to the expected uptick in insolvency-related claims:

New Zealand needs to consider promoting passive overseas investment in developed assets. We are pleased to see that the New Zealand Government has signalled changes to allow for foreign investment in established build-to-rent developments (while still retaining the residential restrictions more generally).

The Supreme Court’s long awaited decision in Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd (In Liq) offers some much needed clarity on directors’ duties in New Zealand. Our initial summary of the decision and its implications is here. This article provides a more detailed review of the state of directors’ obligations post-Mainzeal.

The long awaited Supreme Court decision on the Mainzeal appeal is out, addressing issues of “fundamental importance to the business community”. The judgment essentially upheld the factual findings of the lower Courts that the Mainzeal directors had breached directors’ duties under the Companies Act 1993, and it provides important clarity of the legal principles - and practical steps - that are relevant to directors of companies facing financial difficulties.

Important learnings

Snapshot

The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a noteworthy opinion for those whose work involves real estate mortgage conduit trusts (REMIC trusts) or utilization of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions. In In re MCK Millennium Ctr. Parking, LLC,¹ Bankruptcy Judge Jacqueline P.

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi recently ruled in the Energy Future Holdings case¹ that the debtor will not be required to pay the $431 million “make whole” demanded by bondholders upon the debtor’s early payment of the bonds.²

In what may become viewed as the de facto standard for selling customer information in bankruptcies, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved, on May 20, 2015, a multi-party agreement that would substantially limit RadioShack’s ability to sell 117 million customer records.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif confirms the long-held and common sense belief that “knowing and voluntary consent” is the key to the exercise of judicial authority by a bankruptcy court judge.1 In short, the Supreme Court held that a litigant in a bankruptcy court can consent—expressly or impliedly through waiver—to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of claims that the bankruptcy court otherwise lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.