A party must meet a high bar before the High Court will modify or reverse a liquidator’s decision, or consent to a party commencing adjudication (or other legal proceedings) against a company in liquidation (ss 284(1)(b) and 248(1)(c) of the Companies Act 1993, respectively).

Both issues have been examined by the Court of Appeal in United Civil Construction Ltd v Hayfield SHA Ltd (In Liq) [2023] NZCA 377. This case illustrates the limited avenues available for a contractor to resolve payment of outstanding debts after a principal goes into liquidation.

The equitable mootness doctrine is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for writ of certiorari. The case is U.S. Bank National Association v. Windstream Holdings, Inc.[Fn. 1]

All who’ve seen an effort to abuse equitable mootness, from a creditor’s view, will appreciate the following information from U.S. Bank’s Petition and from a supporting Amicus Brief of law professors in U.S. Bank v. Windstream.

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.

Here’s my take on third-party releases in a bankruptcy plan [not that anyone asked]:

In earlier posts, the Red Zone has discussed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (2022), which held that increased U.S.

In a recent case, the High Court has had one of its first opportunities to consider BTI v Sequana [2022] UKSC 25 (see our previous update here), in which the Supreme Court gave important guidance on the existence and scope of the duty of company directors to have regard to the interests of creditors (the so-called “creditor duty”, which arises in an insolvency scenario).

In earlier posts, the Red Zone has discussed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (2022), which held that increased U.S. Trustee quarterly fees for large Chapter 11 debtors between 2018 and 2020 under the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017 (the “2017 Act”) were unconstitutional because of disparate treatment of Chapter 11 debtors in Bankruptcy Administrator (“BA”) districts, and subsequent judicial decisions determining the appropriate remedy for debtors who overpaid those fees.

“Notwithstanding the court of appeals’ error, this case does not warrant this Court’s review.”

An appeals court ruled recently that chapter 5 avoidance actions are property of a debtor’s bankruptcy estate that can be sold in section 363 sales. In re Simply Essentials, LLC, No. 22-2011, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21814 (8th Cir. Aug. 21, 2023). The decision follows similar rulings by other appeals courts.

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