More than good intentions
Scholarship recipient and Chair of Pregnancy Help, Rachel Vicars MInstD, says finance course gave her confidence to ask questions.
Former directors of Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd (In Liq) were found to have breached their director duties by trading while insolvent. They are required to pay $36m to the company.
The decision may be appealed and it could be some time before matters and law are settled.
Mainzeal was part of a group of companies that came to be known as the Richina Pacific group. After trading for many years, Mainzeal was placed into liquidation in 2013 with creditors owed approximately $110m.
In a civil case before the High Court, the liquidators of Mainzeal have pursued its former directors for breach of their director duties under the Companies Act 1993. A principal claim against four of the directors was that they breached section 135 of the Companies Act. This section essentially provides that a director must not agree, cause, or allow the business of the company to be carried on in a manner likely to create a substantial risk of serious loss to creditors.
The case is complex and the Court noted “that the circumstances of the case can fairly be described as exceptional”. The Court dissected Mainzeal’s trading history and group transactions, and held that there were three considerations that cumulatively led it to conclude s 135 was breached:
The Court expands on the above points in its analysis and provides considerable coverage of the legal requirements under s 135. Other causes of action under the Companies Act put forward by the liquidators were unsuccessful (including claims against a fifth director).
As a result of its finding, the Court ordered the directors to pay compensation to the company in aggregate of $36m (three directors are liable for a maximum amount of $6m each and the fourth is liable for it all). There is a D&O insurance policy with potential cover of $24m.
Should the case be appealed then it could be some time before matters and law are settled. Notwithstanding this, the case serves as a general reminder for directors about the:
The IoD will consider how it can share further insights and learnings from the case for directors and will keep members informed of any other developments (eg if the case is appealed).
See also: