Over the past four years, midstream firms have struggled to adapt their long-standing practices and adjust their long-held expectations, which were fundamentally disrupted by the outcome of the landmark bankruptcy case, In re Sabine Oil & Gas. Midstream providers have since developed and relied on certain mechanisms and carefully drafted contract language in order to bind upstream companies and their successors in interest to obligations and restrictions contained of midstream agreements.

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:

As mentioned in Hesketh Henry’s article “COVID-19: Insolvency law changes” (https://www.heskethhenry.co.nz/insights-opinion/covid-19-insolvency-law-changes/), Grant Robertson has announced that the Government will soon be introducing legislation to make temporary changes to the Companies Act 1993 (“Act”) to help companies facing insolvency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

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:

In February, following oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, we wrote about the hugely important trademark law issue presented by this case, namely: If a bankrupt trademark licensor “rejects” an executory trademark license agreement, does that bankruptcy action terminate the licensee’s right to continue using the licensed trademark for the remaining term of the agreement?

Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on February 20 in the much-watched and even more intensely discussed trademark dispute Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The case presents the difficult and multifaceted question: Does bankruptcy law insulate the right of a trademark licensee to continue using the licensed mark despite the bankrupt trademark licensor’s decision to “reject” the remaining term of the trademark license?

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.