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.

Statutes have attempted to address the issue by imposing liability on directors in<br />

circumstances where the company‟s financial position is doubtful. Most literature on this<br />

is written on the law in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Likewise, any comparisons<br />

made between these statutes are in relation to these three countries. <strong>The</strong> imposition <strong>of</strong><br />

personal liability on directors by statute and common law has been criticized as an<br />

erosion <strong>of</strong> the principle <strong>of</strong> limited liability. 57 Further, the use <strong>of</strong> the concept <strong>of</strong> interests <strong>of</strong><br />

a company as a basis to build protection for the interests <strong>of</strong> the creditors has put the<br />

principle under a considerable degree <strong>of</strong> strain. 58<br />

Due to different wording <strong>of</strong> the statute, the extent <strong>of</strong> directors‟ liability varies in each<br />

jurisdiction. 59 <strong>The</strong> provisions are regarded to be overly protective <strong>of</strong> creditors and are<br />

inherently impracticable because instead <strong>of</strong> improving directors‟ skill or catching errant<br />

directors, they would discourage good managers from joining the company. 60 In addition,<br />

the availability <strong>of</strong> remedies to creditors also depends on the construction <strong>of</strong> the wording<br />

<strong>of</strong> the statute. In regard to the law in Malaysia, not much has been written on this issue<br />

and this thesis attempts to address that.<br />

On the issue <strong>of</strong> remedies, the relevant provisions in the Act and interpretations <strong>of</strong> the<br />

provisions by the court are being scrutinised. It was found that courts sometimes provided<br />

inconsistent interpretations <strong>of</strong> the Acts and therefore it is essential that the Law<br />

Commission should be clear on the meanings <strong>of</strong> these provisions. 61 For example, the<br />

57 Daniel Prentice “Creditor‟s Interests and Director‟s Duties” (1990) 10 OJLS 265.<br />

58 Ibid.<br />

59 Fidelis Oditah “Wrongful Trading” [1990] LMCLQ 205; Andrew Keay and Michael Murray “Making<br />

Companies Directors Liable: A Comparative Analysis <strong>of</strong> Wrongful Trading in the United Kingdom<br />

and Insolvent Trading in Australia” [2005] 14 Int. Insolv. Rev 55; Justin Dabner “Trading Whilst<br />

Insolvent” (1994) 17 UNSW LJ 546.<br />

60 Dale Oesterle “Corporate Directors‟ Personal Liability for Insolvent, Reckless and Wrongful Trading: A<br />

Recipe for Timid Directors, Hamstrung Controlling Shareholders and Skittish Lenders” (2001) 7 NZBLQ<br />

20.<br />

61 Chris Noonan and Susan Watson “Rethinking the Misunderstood and Much Maligned Remedies for<br />

Reckless and Insolvent Trading” (2004) 21 NZULR 26; Mike Ross “Assessing Damages for Reckless<br />

Trading” (2002) NZLJ 178; Richard Schulte “Enforcing Wrongful Trading as Standard <strong>of</strong> Conduct for<br />

21

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!