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

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever

(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)