​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 and Ms Moncur were the sole directors and effective owners of Monocrane NZ (Monocrane). Following their separation, they entered into a relationship property agreement under which Mr Moncur assumed full ownership and control of Monocrane, including agreeing to assume sole responsibility for the overdrawn shareholders' current account. In return, Ms Moncur agreed to resign her directorship, transfer her shares to Mr Moncur and pay various joint debts.

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.

In Ebert Construction Ltd v Sanson [2016] NZHC 472, the High Court awarded costs to liquidators after a statutory demand issued by the liquidators had been set aside by consent.  The reasons were as follows:

Deciding the parameters of directors' personal liability for actions, or omissions, when a company continues to trade while it is or near insolvent requires a balance to be struck between allowing directors latitude to try to rescue the company and protecting the company's creditors.

Deciding the parameters of directors' personal liability for actions, or omissions, when a company continues to trade while it is or near insolvent requires a balance to be struck between allowing directors latitude to try to rescue the company and protecting the company's creditors.

The United Kingdom Supreme Court has just released an important insolvency judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 (Sequana), which concerns when and the extent to which directors of a company must consider the interests of creditors.

The United Kingdom Supreme Court has just released an important insolvency judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 (Sequana), which concerns when and the extent to which directors of a company must consider the interests of creditors.

In FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd (Respondent) v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corporation (Appellant) (Cayman Islands) [2023] UKPC 33, the Privy Council has provided useful guidance about the interplay between an arbitration agreement and exercise of the Cayman court’s powers and discretion to wind up a company on just and equitable grounds.