In Petterson v Browne [2016] NZCA 189 a liquidator successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal and obtained orders under sections 295 and 299 of the Companies Act 1993 (Act) for certain payments and security to be set aside. 

​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

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

​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.

Mr Kamal was appointed as liquidator of two companies of which the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (CIR) was a creditor.  The CIR applied to the High Court for orders under section 286(5) of the Companies Act 1993 prohibiting Mr Kamal from acting as a company liquidator for a period of up to five years.

In CIR v Kamal [2016] NZHC 1053 the CIR sought the orders on the basis that Mr Kamal was guilty of a continuing breach of his duties as a liquidator that made him unfit to act as a liquidator because:

The Court of Appeal in Madsen-Ries v Petera considered the reasonableness of directors' remuneration in circumstances when a company is in a dire financial position.  Mr and Mrs Petera, directors of a failed transport business, were asked by the liquidators to repay the salaries they declared for tax purposes, because they had not complied with the certification requirements under section 161 of the Companies Act 1993 (Act), being to satisfy themselves on reasonable grounds that the payments were fair to the company.

La Dirección General de Tributos examina, en un contexto de consolidación fiscal, las consecuencias fiscales de una operación en virtud de la cual la entidad dominante condona los créditos que tiene sobre sus filiales, derechos adquiridos previamente por medio de una operación de reestructuración empresarial no acogida al régimen de neutralidad fiscal y registrados por un valor inferior a su nominal.

El Tribunal Supremo rechaza el ejercicio de las acciones rescisorias especiales del Derecho concursal contra una escisión de sociedades inscrita en el Registro Mercantil, y afirma que la protección de los acreedores debe realizarse por vía resarcitoria.

Year in Review – Derecho Español en 2016

En los últimos meses se han sucedido en España dos procesos de elecciones generales y las distintas fuerzas políticas no han llegado a un acuerdo para formar gobierno hasta octubre de 2016. Lo anterior ha supuesto una ralentización importante de la actividad legislativa. Destacamos a continuación las principales novedades normativas y jurisprudenciales de 2016:

Year in Review – Spanish Law in 2016

Two general elections were held in Spain recently (the first in December 2015) and the various political parties were unable to reach an agreement to form a government until October 2016. This meant a major slowdown in law-making activity. The following are the main legislative changes and case-law precedents from 2016: