In Mclean v Trustees of the Bankruptcy Estate of Dent [2016] EWHC 2650, the High Court considered the application of the equitable doctrines of marshalling and subrogation in relation to a fixed charge over (among other things) a dog.
A company and partnership borrowed funds from two sources – Barclays Bank and Lady Morrison. Barclays held, among other things, charges over farms owned by individual partners and an agricultural charge under the Agricultural Credits Act 1928 (UK), including a charge over a dog. Lady Morrison only held charges over the farms.
In Day v The Official Assignee as Liquidator of GN Networks Ltd (in Liq) [2016] NZHC 2400, the High Court rejected a claim that the funding arrangement at issue constituted maintenance or champerty.
While not an exhaustive list, here is a reminder of some measures you might want to think about to help mitigate the effects of insolvency on construction projects. As with all these measures (and with insolvency generally) there are a number of complicated issues to be considered, so do seek advice as necessary.
Performance security
The facts
Through corporate acquisitions and asset transfers, BAT Industries plc (“BAT”) (a Claimant in the proceedings) became liable to contribute to the clean-up of the sediment of the Lower Fox River in Wisconsin, U.S.A. Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited (“AWA”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Sequana SA (“Sequana”) (a Defendant in proceedings), became liable to indemnify BAT for part of any monies paid out. Provision was duly made in AWA’s accounts to reflect a best estimate of the value of such liability.
Introduction
In our June 2016 update, we discussed the Court of Appeal's decisions in Madsen-Ries v Petera[2016] NZCA 103, Calvert v Reynolds [2016] NZCA 151, and Petterson v Browne [2016] NZCA 189. In all three cases leave was sought to appeal to the Supreme Court. Leave was granted to the applicant companies in Petterson v Browne, but declined in all other cases. 
In the recent High Court case of McKay v Johnson & Smith [2016] NZHC 1691, a liquidator, Geoff Martin Smith, allegedly sent a notice under s 305 of the Companies Act 1993 to the bank that had security over a company in liquidation. The bank did not respond to the notice and Mr Smith alleged that the bank had lost its security. The bank maintained it never received the notice.
The Court was satisfied that the notice had been fabricated because:
In Advicewise People Ltd v Trends Publishing International Ltd, four creditors of Trends Publishing International Ltd (Trends) successfully challenged a compromise approved under Part 14 of the Companies Act 1993.
The High Court's ruling in Priest v Ross Asset Management Ltd (In Liq) [2016] NZHC 1803 arose out of the devastation of the Ponzi scheme effected by David Ross of Ross Asset Management Limited (In Liquidation) (RAM) and Dagger Nominees Limited (Dagger). For many years RAM and Dagger reported spectacular returns for investors before their illusion was revealed, the Financial Markets Authority became involved and liquidators were appointed.
In Petterson v Hutt a liquidator sought an interim injunction preventing any enforcement steps being taken under two general security agreements (GSAs). In the substantive proceeding, the liquidator sought to have the GSAs set aside.