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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

In relation to an action against a holding company for the insolvency <strong>of</strong> its<br />

subsidiary, in Australia the right is vested solely in the liquidator. In New Zealand,<br />

the right to apply for a pooling order lies with the liquidator, creditors or<br />

shareholders. 252 When compared to the UK and Malaysia, creditors in Australia and<br />

New Zealand are in a better position because there are specific provisions in the<br />

statute, which requires in certain circumstances, that the holding company be liable<br />

for the debts <strong>of</strong> its subsidiary. Creditors in the UK and Malaysia, on the other hand,<br />

have to rely on the common law principle <strong>of</strong> lifting the corporate veil. Cases have<br />

shown that courts are reluctant to depart from the principle <strong>of</strong> separate legal entity<br />

except in cases where fraud exists. 253<br />

<strong>The</strong> requirement <strong>of</strong> liquidation before wrongful trading can be invoked, as in the UK,<br />

may prevent some creditors from getting compensation. This is because not all<br />

companies will end up in liquidation despite being hopelessly insolvent. In Australia,<br />

the company does not have to be in liquidation in order for section 588G to be used,<br />

but in calculating the amount <strong>of</strong> the award to be granted, courts have insisted on the<br />

link between recovery and liquidation. 254<br />

<strong>The</strong> condition which attaches to liquidation as a pre requisite to recover for<br />

compensation could prejudice the rights <strong>of</strong> creditors. This is because although in the<br />

majority <strong>of</strong> cases insolvency is followed by liquidation <strong>of</strong> the company, there are<br />

circumstances where the company may opt for other insolvency regimes such as<br />

administration or receivership. In this circumstance, directors could not be held<br />

personally liable under the Act and the protection it confers on creditors would not<br />

be available. Another aspect <strong>of</strong> this stipulation which may cause injustice is when<br />

liquidation intrudes; the company normally does not have enough assets to pay<br />

creditors in full. Hence it would grant more protection to creditors if the rights are<br />

252 See section 271 <strong>of</strong> the New Zealand Companies Act 1993.<br />

253 See discussions in Chapter 5 <strong>of</strong> the thesis.<br />

254 Justin Dabner ―Trading Whilst Insolvent- A Case for Individual Creditor Rights Against Directors‖<br />

(1994) 17 UNSWLJ 546 at 568.<br />

369

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!