Edmonds Judd

reckless trading

Postscript

Commercial, Property, Your Own Business
0

Mainzeal case

The implications of the Mainzeal case[1] are being felt far and wide amongst the directorship community. We summarise below the findings of the Supreme Court case.

 

In August, after the case worked its way through the High Court and Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court found that the directors should be personally liable for $39.8 million plus interest payable  at 5% pa from the date of liquidation – together more than $50 million. The chief executive of Mainzeal (who was also a director) is responsible for the full sum, and the personal liability of the three other directors was capped at $6.6 million each plus interest.

 

In 2013, Mainzeal went into receivership and liquidation. It was calculated the company owed around $110 million to unsecured creditors. The liquidators believed that the directors of the company had breached s135 (reckless trading) and s136 (trading whilst insolvent) of the Companies Act 1993 and should be held personally liable for the losses of the company’s creditors.

 

Many directors may want to take a moment to reflect on what the Supreme Court decision may mean for them now and in the future. Becoming personally liable for a company’s debts is a significant risk associated with accepting (or continuing) a director role.

 

If you are considering taking on a directorship, you should take independent legal and accounting advice to not only carefully assess whether your skills are a good match for the company and the sector in which it operates, but also to be clear on any potential personal liability.

[1] Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited (in liquidation) [2023] NZSC 113.

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Fineprint is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Fineprint may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2022.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650

Mainzeal decision

Commercial, Latest news, Property, Your Own Business
0

Major implications for company directors

Taking on the responsibility of a directorship is not a decision to be taken lightly. For New Zealand directors, the magnitude of the director role has been hammered home with the decision of the Mainzeal case from the Supreme Court in late August.[1]

This decision has sent a strong signal from the New Zealand justice system that directors can, and will be, held personally liable for financial losses experienced by creditors if the directors allow the company to trade recklessly and/or trade while insolvent.

 

About Mainzeal

Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited was one of the largest New Zealand construction companies in the years leading up to its financial collapse.  In 2013, the company went into receivership and liquidation owing unsecured creditors around $110 million. The Mainzeal liquidators believed that the directors of the company had breached s135 (reckless trading) and s136 (insolvent trading) of the Companies Act 1993 and should be held personally liable for the losses of the company’s creditors.

 

Supreme Court decision

While going into the nuances of each of the court hearings is too complex for the scope of this article (the Mainzeal case has been heard in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court), it is noteworthy that each court accepted that the directors should be held personally liable to some extent for a breach of their director’s duties.

At the highest court in New Zealand, the Supreme Court, the judges found that the directors should be liable for $39.8 million plus interest payable at 5% pa from the date of liquidation (together more than $50 million). The chief executive of Mainzeal is responsible for the full sum, and the liability of the three other directors was capped at $6.6 million each plus interest.

 

Facts rather than intentions

Critically, personal liability falling on a director due to a breach of directors’ duties under s135 (reckless trading) and s136 (insolvent trading) is a matter of facts, not intentions.

The Mainzeal directors were not accused of any conflict of interest or lack of honesty, and were taken on their word that they acted with good intention while running the company. Regardless, it mattered that on the facts they permitted the company to trade in a way that was reckless and allowed the company to trade while it was insolvent.

 

Companies Act 1993 may need a refresh

Both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court indicated that a review and update of the Companies Act will be helpful.

The Mainzeal case reinforces to directors the consequences of failing to avoid reckless or insolvent trading, however the current legislation does not provide additional guidance or safe harbour for directors and their decision-making. Adding new guidance for directors’ duties into the Companies Act could enable directors to more confidently navigate the complexities of commercial decision-making with a need for accountability to their creditors.

 

Personal liability

After the announcement of the Supreme Court decision, many directors may want to take a moment to step back and allow the lessons of Mainzeal to sink in. Becoming personally liable for a company’s debts is a significant risk associated with accepting (or continuing) a director role.

Every director of a company should ensure they feel adequately knowledgeable about all key aspects of their company and the sector in which it operates. Accepting a directorship role where there are gaps in skills, or knowledge of the company or sector, can lead to an increased risk that the director may unwittingly allow, or join their other directors in, a decision that permits the company to trade in a reckless or insolvent manner, opening up personal liability and prejudicing creditors.

If you are considering taking on a directorship, you should take independent legal and accounting advice to not only carefully assess whether your skills are a good match for the company and sector, but also to be clear on any potential personal liability.

If you would like some help in assessing whether a directorship is a good fit for you, please don’t hesitate to contact us for further guidance.

 

[1] Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited (in liquidation) [2023] NZSC 113.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commerical eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Commercial eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2022.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650

Creditor compromise regime

Your Own Business
0

Another option in insolvency

When a company is struggling to pay its bills, ‘insolvency’ and ‘reckless trading’ are frightening words that may be thrown around the table. On 3 April 2020, as the first wave of Covid lockdowns hit, the government introduced a brief ‘safe harbour’ regime. Its purpose was to protect directors of New Zealand companies from being held liable for trying to stay afloat and it permitted a company to trade whilst technically insolvent. This protection was removed on 30 September 2020. In this article we discuss an alternative to liquidation or receivership. Using the ‘creditor compromise’ regime can return better outcomes for both the company and its creditors.

When is a company ’insolvent’?

A company is considered insolvent when it cannot pay all debts as they fall due or the total debts of the company are greater than its total assets. The company could be recklessly trading if the directors allow the business to be carried on in a manner likely to create a substantial risk of serious loss to the company’s creditors. Allowing a company to trade when it is insolvent can put the directors at risk of being held personally liable for reckless trading. The directors could also be personally liable if they allow the company to incur an obligation unless they reasonably believe the company will be able to perform that obligation when required. The consequences of reckless trading or breaching those director obligations can be significant. In the well-publicised and ongoing Mainzeal case, directors were found personally liable for $36 million after allowing the company to trade recklessly.[1]

Options for an insolvent company

When directors of a company establish that it is no longer solvent, few choices are available. The two most common options are liquidation and receivership. Either option can be voluntary (the company elects to go through the process to ensure compliance with the Companies Act 1993) or involuntary (a creditor or group of creditors may force the company into the process).

Receiverships and liquidations have very detailed processes and procedures, and need skilled independent advisors, including lawyers, accountants and insolvency professionals, to guide the company through the process and liaise with creditors.

There is, however, another choice that may be appropriate for a company facing insolvency.

What is a creditor compromise?

Creditor compromise is a lesser-known option that is available when a company cannot meet its debts. The company proposes an alternative (the ‘compromise’) to all creditors, such as forgiveness of part of the debt or extended timeframes for repayment, and then calls for all creditors to vote on the compromise. If passed, all the creditors are bound to that compromise, and cannot put the company into liquidation or receivership.

It is important when entering into a creditor compromise that the directors are confident the company can commit to the terms of the compromise; failing to meet the terms could lead to significant consequences for the company and its directors, including personal liability for reckless trading.

A creditor compromise can be preferable for a company and its directors for many reasons. No public notice is required, and the terms of the compromise are often kept private therefore reducing reputational damage to the company.

Aside from those obvious advantages, a creditor compromise also allows the directors to retain control over the company and its assets, the compromise is binding on all creditors, and it can provide a means for the company to slowly return to solvent trading. For the creditor, the compromise often allows them to receive more in the long run than they would have received under a liquidation.

The process

A creditor compromise follows this process:

  1. Directors drive the process: A creditor compromise plan is usually driven by the directors. They identify that the company is insolvent, or at risk of being deemed insolvent, and look for a ‘compromise’ that will allow the company to manage its debts.
  2. Appoint independent manager: The directors appoint a professional to manage the process and develop the creditor compromise plan. It can be an accountant, lawyer, or insolvency professional (or often, a combination) who are experienced in navigating solvency issues.
  3. Identify classes of creditors: A critical, and most often litigated, step, is the classification of all creditors into appropriate classes by the independent manager. This usually starts with secured creditors, followed by unsecured creditors. The grouping of creditors into ‘classes’ is not a straightforward process, and it is crucial to get this right to ensure the creditor compromise is binding.The manager must understand features of each creditor such as their dependency on the debt, size of the debt, size of the creditor, the financial strength of each creditor and more.As this step can lead to court action, incorrectly classifying the company’s creditors can lead to the entire compromise arrangement being overturned by the court and the company being placed into liquidation.[2]
  4. Present the creditor compromise plan for key creditor agreement: Whilst not a legislative step, once a preferred plan has been outlined most companies find it prudent to engage with their key creditors at this stage to ensure there is agreement to the plan. If key creditors aren’t satisfied the plan will give them a better result than liquidation or receivership, the creditor compromise is unlikely to succeed and there is no point progressing further. Sometimes key points of the agreement are negotiated at this point before a final version is circulated to all creditors.
  5. Formally notify all creditors: Once the creditor compromise plan is finalised, the key information is circulated to all the company’s creditors. It must include specific information including naming the acting parties, events that have led to the compromise situation, the compromise proposal itself, an assessment of what the creditors would receive in a liquidation (to allow them to compare their options), and a full list of all creditors and the estimated amounts owing. This key information also includes the method by which the creditors can vote. A minimum of five days’ notice must be provided to creditors to review the creditor plan and submit their votes.
  6. Vote: If the creditors vote to approve the plan, it will be binding on all creditors regardless of which way they voted. In order to ‘pass’, at least 50% of the number of creditors and 75% of the value of the creditors in each class must approve the compromise. If the compromise is not approved, a liquidation or receivership may result.

Regardless of whether you are a director of a company facing insolvency, or a creditor who has discovered a company which is indebted to you has, or may, become insolvent, seeking experienced legal advice on insolvency is key.

Directors will need a good legal or insolvency advisor to discuss all available options to get the best result for the company and its creditors, as well as ensuring there is protection from the risk of an accusation of reckless trading.

As a creditor, an advisor will ensure you are fully informed of all options that could lessen your total losses.

If you would like to know more about how a creditor compromise works, or if your company is heading towards insolvency, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

[1] Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd (in liq) v Yan and Others [2019] NZHC 255

[2] Trends Publishing International Ltd v Advicewise People Ltd [2017] NZCA 365

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Fineprint is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Fineprint may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2022.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650