06.04.2020

COVID-19: Temporary ‘safe harbour’ from directors’ insolvency duties

As mentioned in Hesketh Henry’s article “COVID-19: Insolvency law changes” (https://www.heskethhenry.co.nz/insights-opinion/covid-19-insolvency-law-changes/), Grant Robertson has announced that the Government will soon be introducing legislation to make temporary changes to the Companies Act 1993 (“Act”) to help companies facing insolvency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  The proposed changes include providing directors of companies facing significant liquidity problems because of COVID-19 a six-month ‘safe harbour’ from their duties under the reckless trading (section 135) and the duty in relation to obligations (section 136) sections of the Act.

Under sections 135 and 136 of the Act, a director of a company must not:

  • agree to, cause or allow the business of the company, to be carried on in a manner likely to create substantial risk of serious loss to the company’s creditors; or
  • agree to the company incurring an obligation unless the director believes at the time on reasonable grounds that the company will be able to perform the obligation when it is required to do so.                                       

These duties will be front of mind for directors of companies temporarily unable to pay their debts due to COVID-19 and will impact on how directors make decisions in relation to the future of those companies.  A safe harbour around these duties will mean that directors’ decisions to continue trading, as well as decisions to take on new obligations, over the next six months will not result in a breach of section 135 or 136 if:

  1. in the good faith opinion of the directors, the company is facing or is likely to face significant liquidity problems in the next 6 months as a result of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on them or their creditors;
  2. the company was able to pay its debts as they fell due on 31 December 2019; and
  3. the directors consider in good faith that it is more likely than not that the company will be able to pay its debts as they fall due within 18 months (for example, because trading conditions are likely to improve or they are likely to able to reach an accommodation with their creditors).

The purpose of the proposed safe harbour is to effectively reduce the number of unnecessary liquidations of companies which, but for the COVID-19 pandemic, are otherwise viable.  At this stage, the proposed safe harbour period is six months.  The safe harbour is still subject to the agreement of Parliament.  Government has indicated that it will seek Parliament’s agreement for the safe harbour to apply retrospectively from the date of the Government announcement (being 3 April 2020). 

The Australian Government has announced a similar temporary safe harbour around directors’ insolvent trading liability, which will apply for six months (from 25 March 2020) in relation to debts incurred in the ordinary course of business.

Directors of New Zealand companies should be aware that other directors’ duties and obligations in the Act continue to apply.  These include the duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company and the associated offence for a serious breach of this duty, as well as the offence for the dishonest incurrence of debts by a director.

For more information on how the temporary safe harbour may apply in your particular circumstances, please contact our business advice team.

The latest government information for businesses in relation to COVID-19 can be found on the business.govt.nz website: https://www.business.govt.nz/news/coronavirus-information-for-businesses/.  We suggest that this is reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that you have the most up to date information.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is current at the date of publishing and is of a general nature.  It should be used as a guide only and not as a substitute for obtaining legal advice.  Specific legal advice should be sought where required.

 

Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

Mediation wide BW
Employment Law’s Dispute Resolution Process – Employment Relations Authority and Employment Court
In our last article, we introduced the dispute resolution process in the employment jurisdiction by discussing mediation – specifically, what mediation is and what to expect. This article discusses ...
17.04.2025 Posted in Employment
You’ve Been Served: Navigating the Use of Statutory Demands
An Introduction to Statutory Demands: A statutory demand is a legal document that is issued by a creditor (Creditor) to a debtor company (Debtor) demanding payment of a debt that is due and owing.  T...
15.04.2025 Posted in Insolvency and Restructuring
iStock  Succession Plan medium
Passing the Torch: Priming your Family Business for a Succession
As the first in a series of articles looking at the generational wealth transition and its impacts on business succession in New Zealand, Ben Hickson (partner, Corporate & Commercial) and John Kir...
07.04.2025 Posted in Corporate & Commercial & Private Wealth
Deciding to Wind Up? Observations on winding-up a trust from a recent High Court case
A trust can be a hassle and expensive to maintain.  So, it is not unusual for clients to reflect on whether a trust should be maintained. When settlors, Bert and Diana Queenin, decided to wind up the...
24.03.2025 Posted in Private Wealth
Mediation wide BW
Employment Law’s Dispute Resolution Process – Mediation
Navigating the dispute resolution process in the employment jurisdiction can be tricky. This article aims to spell out the key considerations for those involved in or contemplating mediation, which is...
24.03.2025 Posted in Employment
empty wallet finance concept
Amendment to the Crimes Act 1961: Intentionally not paying employees their wages now deemed theft
An amendment to the Crimes Act 1961 (Crimes Act) – the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill has been passed by Parliament and received Royal assent. It is now an enforceable provision of th...
14.03.2025 Posted in Employment
Time’s Up: Late Redelivery and the Assessment of Damages in Hapag Lloyd AG v Skyros Maritime Corporation and Hapag Lloyd AG v Agios Minas Shipping Company
The English Commercial Court gave an instructive judgment on the assessment of damages in Hapag Lloyd AG v Skyros Maritime Corporation and Hapag Lloyd AG v Agios Minas Shipping Company; an appeal brou...
11.03.2025 Posted in Trade and Transport
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.