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.

In New Zealand, section 301 allows a liquidator, creditor or shareholder to bring an<br />

action, although in most cases sections 135 and 136 are invoked at times when the<br />

company is already wound up. <strong>The</strong> requirement that the company has to be in<br />

liquidation before the sections can be invoked may result in creditors whose<br />

companies are not wound up being left without compensation. Apart from taking<br />

action under section 301, shareholders have the right to bring a derivative action<br />

under section 165 in respect <strong>of</strong> a breach <strong>of</strong> sections 135 and 136. It is argued that if<br />

the action against directors is brought under section 165, their liability will be higher<br />

than if it is brought under section 301 because the courts do not have discretion to<br />

reduce the amount, unlike section 301. 250 Due to the discrepancy in the sums<br />

awarded, depending on which statutory provision is invoked, it has been suggested<br />

that the relevant factors for the court to consider should be the knowledge and<br />

conduct <strong>of</strong> creditors. 251<br />

Creditors are reluctant to take proceedings because they would have to pay into the<br />

company for distribution according to the insolvency rules. Hence, in most cases it is<br />

the issue <strong>of</strong> costs exceeding benefits obtained. In addition, a company may also bring<br />

an action for breach <strong>of</strong> section 135 against the director on the basis that he or she has<br />

breached a duty owed to the company.<br />

In Malaysia, an individual creditor has a cause <strong>of</strong> action under section 304(1) which<br />

means that in order for all creditors to be compensated, multiple proceedings are<br />

unavoidable. This also indicates that only creditors with adequate means will be able<br />

to recover losses from directors since court proceedings are costly. In this situation, it<br />

can be argued that the objective to protect unsecured creditors is not met and some<br />

creditors may be precluded from receiving any compensation. In this regard, the<br />

Australian provision which requires a creditor to obtain a written consent from the<br />

liquidator before commencing a proceeding is preferable to prevent multiple actions.<br />

250 Noonan and Watson above n117 at 42.<br />

251 Ibid.<br />

368

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!