On 5 October 2022, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC) delivered a landmark judgment regarding directors’ duties in an insolvency context. In BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25, the UKSC considered the circumstances in which directors must have regard to the interests of creditors when exercising duties owed to the company and what obligations that imposes on directors.

The United Kingdom Supreme Court has just released an important insolvency judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 (Sequana), which concerns when and the extent to which directors of a company must consider the interests of creditors.

The High Court has granted leave to a taxpayer to appeal a District Court decision declining to dismiss charges of evading or attempting to evade assessments of payment of tax by him or another person. The High Court rejected the taxpayer’s submissions that the fact of his bankruptcy meant that he could not be liable for the charges brought against him. The Court held that a bankrupt could be charged for evading or attempting to evade the payment of GST when that bankrupt had operated a company that had charged and received GST on taxable supplies.

Facts

In Kellow, Re Advanced Building & Construction Ltd (In Liq) v Advanced Building & Construction Ltd (In Liq) (No 2) (Kellow) the Court considered whether an insolvency proceeding commenced in New Zealand should be recognised as a “foreign main proceeding” pursuant to the United Nations’ Commission on International Trade Law’s Model Law on International Trade Law (Model Law).

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.

Since our last newsletter, Russia's war in Ukraine rumbles on, domestic inflation hits new highs and there are signs of an increase in activity in the insolvency market. Russians unlawful assault on Ukraine continues unabated, as we enter the European summer months, and the fourth month of the invasion. Besides the utter devastation inflicted on the people and infrastructure of Ukraine, the war is having a significant impact on both global food and oil prices.

Rising distress? 2022 in statistics31 December 2022

Court exercises discretion to grant examination orders The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court’s exercise of its discretion to grant orders that a company director be examined in Court notwithstanding that director was involved (as defendant in one instance and as the director of a defendant company in the other) in separate legal proceedings that have been commenced by the liquidator.

The latest chapter in the Mainzeal saga played out last week with the Supreme Court hearing the directors' appeal (and the liquidators' cross-appeal) against the Court of Appeal's decision in Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd (in liq) [2021] NZCA 99.

We open the year with several events of major significance. The unlawful invasion of Ukraine by Russia is justifiably dominating the news cycle, with harrowing images of the impact of Russia's indiscriminate military bombardment on Ukrainian cities and towns. The invasion will have a substantial impact on the global economy. The conflict is also highly likely to have implications for our own domestic markets despite the geographical distance between us. Local sharemarkets have been volatile and oil prices have spiked in the last week.

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.