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:
Supreme Court Judgment dated 10 March 2016 (STS 151/2016)
The judgment of the Supreme Court analyses the objective scope of extension of the liability for obligations and debts for which, as appropriate, the director of a company should be liable and, more specifically, the scope of "the corporate obligations subsequent to the occurrence of the legal ground for dissolution".
The Supreme Court confirmed the lower-court judgments that had rescinded the payments made to the managing director through remuneration, as the bylaw requisite to create the right to receive it had not been met, as well as payments made to shareholders through dividends, differentiating between the resolution of the meeting to distribute dividends and the payment of these dividends.