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.
The Supreme Court has recently released a decision on directors' duties, which should serve as a timely reminder to all directors of their duties under the Companies Act in circumstances of insolvency. Continuing to trade while insolvent will be a breach of your duties, even if you believe that overall creditors may be better off or the extent of losses will be reduced. It is however welcome confirmation for liquidators that the Courts will enforce the provisions of the Companies Act based on the clear wording of these sections.
The Supreme Court last Thursday released its long awaited decision on directors duties engaged on a company’s insolvency – Debut Homes Limited (in liquidation) v Cooper [2020] NZSC 100. The decision has profound implications for directors confronted with a business experiencing material financial distress and more broadly, for creditors, lenders and the insolvency profession.
Susheel Dutt has unsuccessfully appealed a decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal that he was guilty of unbecoming conduct, negligence or incompetence in a professional capacity and the suspension of his membership for a period of 18 months, highlighting the important role that insolvency practitioners play and the high standards expected of the profession.
The High Court judgment in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Livingspace Properties Ltd (in rec and in liq) [2020] NZHC 1434 is another chapter in the continuing, bitter saga between Robert Walker, the liquidator of Livingspace and David Henderson (through his wife as proxy).
New Zealand's insolvency practitioner licensing regime came into force on 1 September 2020. Ahead of that date, controversial insolvency practitioner, Damien Grant, applied to join RITANZ, which was a requirement for him to be licensed to continue as an insolvency practitioner, because he was not a chartered accountant. RITANZ considered his application in June 2020 and refused it on good character grounds. RITANZ's decision has not been publicly released, but is understood to be founded on Grant's historical dishonesty convictions.
With facts described as "labyrinthine", Edgeworth Capital (Luxembourg) SARL v Maud [2020] EWHC 974 (Ch) is the latest judgment from Snowden J on efforts to bankrupt Mr Maud.
Snowden J’s latest judgment deals with three issues:
In Hampton v Minter Ellison Rudd Watts [2020] NZCA 291 the Court of Appeal found that ordering a stay of enforcement of a bankruptcy order would undermine the insolvency law regime.
In our April 2019 newsletter we reported on the High Court judgment in Mainzeal Property Construction Limited (in liq) & Ors v Yan & Ors [2019] NZHC 255. The directors were ordered to contribute $36m to Mainzeal’s assets to be distributed to creditors. The Court found that Mr Yan was the most culpable director and had induced the other directors to breach their duties.
Following the administration of Virgin Australia the lessors of four engines that were leased to Virgin served notice requiring delivery up of the engines to a nominated address in the USA. The administrators argued that their obligations to the lessors were met if they made the engines available for delivery up in Australia.