14.01.2013 Views

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

its holding company), act in a manner which he or she believes is in the best interests<br />

<strong>of</strong> that company‟s holding company even though it may not be in the interests <strong>of</strong> the<br />

company.<br />

A director <strong>of</strong> a partly owned subsidiary may also contract out <strong>of</strong> the separate legal<br />

principle to consider the interests <strong>of</strong> the company he serves, if the constitution allows<br />

him to do so and there is an agreement that shareholders, other than the parent<br />

company agreed to such an arrangement. <strong>The</strong> wording in the section differs slightly<br />

from sub-section (2), for in the former, the requirement <strong>of</strong> agreement from<br />

shareholders other than the holding company is essential. This is because in the<br />

partly owned subsidiary the problem <strong>of</strong> abuse <strong>of</strong> minority shareholders is more acute;<br />

as such, in order to prevent minority shareholders from being oppressed their<br />

agreement is necessary.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is no equivalent provision to section 131(3) in Australia.<br />

5.2.3.3 Lifting <strong>of</strong> the Corporate Veil in Groups <strong>of</strong> Companies<br />

New Zealand and Australia have taken radical steps by making provisions in their<br />

laws to permit courts to make orders as if the companies in a group are one entity.<br />

Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Farrar pointed out that the provision in section 271(1) is similar to the<br />

position in the United States and suggested the possibilities <strong>of</strong> the US cases being<br />

accepted in New Zealand‟s courts. 119 This trend has emerged in the case <strong>of</strong><br />

Mountfort v Tasman Pacific Airlines <strong>of</strong> NZ Limited 120 where the court has made<br />

references to the United States cases in deciding whether it is just and equitable to<br />

make orders under section 271.<br />

119 Farrar Corporate Governance above n79 at 277-278; see also Lynne Taylor “Liquidation” in John<br />

Farrar (Ed.) Company and Securities Law in New Zealand (Brookers, Wellington, 2008) 799 at<br />

[30.7.1]; Gehan Gunasekara and Alan Toy “Lifting the Veil on Pooling Orders under Section 271 <strong>of</strong><br />

the Companies Act 1993” (2007) 13 NZBLQ 18; John Farrar “Legal Issues Involving Corporate<br />

Groups” (1998) 16 C&SLJ184.<br />

120 [2006] 1 NZLR 104.<br />

97

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!