​Liquidators cannot examine directors to obtain private financial information on which to judge their worth as prospective defendants.

This position was reinforced by the Court of Appeal in a recent decision.

Two High Court decisions setting aside creditors' compromises give new guidance on the parameters of Part 14 of the Companies Act 1993.

The regime:

• cannot require the release of the company's guarantors (but that may not be the case under Part 15), and
• requires separate classes of creditors based on a pragmatic, business-oriented approach with regard to both the legal rights and economic interests of creditors.

No release of the company's guarantors

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Steel & Tube Holdings Limited (STH) against the legal basis and quantum of a $750,000 judgment based on a “de facto amalgamation” with its subsidiary company.

The ruling reinforces the message from the High Court that directors must be careful to maintain a subsidiary’s independence if they are to protect the parent against liability for the subsidiary’s debts.

The context

​The High Court has issued its first major decision under Part 15A of the Companies Act, rejecting a multi-faceted challenge by Cargill International to the Solid Energy Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA).

The ruling provides important guidance on the operation of New Zealand’s voluntary administration regime.

Chapman Tripp acted for Solid Energy’s lenders, the fourth respondents in the proceeding.

Background

​Directors do not need to consider creditors’ interests when determining the fairness of their own remuneration, even after the company has become insolvent, the Court of Appeal has found.

The facts

The Companies Act 1993 requires that directors who vote to authorise director remuneration must sign a certificate stating that, in their opinion, the payment is fair to the company and setting out the grounds for that opinion.

A director is not absolutely liable for all losses suffered by a company on his or her watch.

So the Court of Appeal has ruled in a recent liquidation dispute.

The context

Rowan Johnston, a former investor and director in NZNet, pumped funds into the company when it ran into difficulties, but found that NZNet’s managing director Stephen Andrews had misled him about the company’s financial position.

On 15 September 2011, he resigned his directorship and a couple of months later, NZNet went into liquidation.

After failing to sell Dick Smith as a going concern, receivers Ferrier Hodgson are now trying to sell the company’s New Zealand and Australian assets, including customer databases.  But does the Privacy Act 1993 allow it?

The legal position

A receiver or liquidator is bound by the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993.

If asked to provide information to a liquidator, the safest course may be to provide it under oath under section 261 of the Companies Act 1993 because the High Court has found that immunity will apply to such statements.

We look at the decision.

The case

Directors beware – unless you are careful to maintain a subsidiary’s independence, the parent company may be liable for the debts of its subsidiary.

That is the effect of a recent High Court decision invoking a rarely used provision in the Companies Act.

We analyse the judgment and draw some practical advice from it.

Section 271

Section 271(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1993 (the Act) has been used only rarely and is unique to New Zealand law, although Ireland has a similar provision.