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.

 

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
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

shutterstock
Bowen case part 2 – the ins and outs of the determination
In our last article, we wrote about what protected disclosures are and who can make them. In this article, we discuss the Employment Relations Authority (Authority) determination, Bowen v Bank of New ...
13.09.2024 Posted in Employment
Are trustees bound to relationship property agreements?
In Rawson v Prescott [2024] NZHC 1919, the High Court addressed a dispute involving trust property and a relationship property agreement. Mr RR, trustee of the GR Family Trust, sought summary judgment...
10.09.2024 Posted in Private Wealth
shutterstock
Bowen case part 1 – blowing the whistle
You may have heard of the term ‘whistleblowing’, but have you heard of ‘protected disclosures’? Protected disclosures are a creature of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers)...
10.09.2024 Posted in Employment
Construction theme black and white
Contractors take note – are any of your retentions clauses prohibited provisions?
In Stevensons Structural Engineers 1978 Ltd (in liq) v McMillan & Lockwood (PN) Ltd & Anor [2024] NZHC 2415, the High Court held that the timing for payment out of retentions in certain subcon...
05.09.2024 Posted in Construction
Avoiding the Grey Area: Interpreting Trust Beneficiary Classes
Beneficiary classes in trust deeds should be clearly defined to ensure the assets of the trust benefit the people who the settlor(s) of the trust originally intended.   If they are not, then disputes...
05.09.2024 Posted in Private Wealth
vecteezy square wooden blocks lined up on a wooden workbench  Insurance Icons centered
Hesketh Henry’s Insurance Team author LexisNexis Practical Guidance Insurance
Hesketh Henry’s Insurance Team is delighted to celebrate the launch of Practical Guidance Insurance. LexisNexis has launched Practical Guidance Insurance containing 12 topics and over 50 sub-topics ...
03.09.2024 Posted in Insurance
Contract dictionary
Is ‘close enough’ OK? Reasonable endeavours to overcome a force majeure event
The English Supreme Court’s decision in RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV [2024] UKSC 18 has demonstrated the effect sanctions may have on a contract as a force majeure event and clarified the parameters of...
03.09.2024 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.