New Zealand: NSW appellate decision explores scope of director and officer liability

Last Updated: 6 February 2011
Article by Richard May and Sarah Wilson

Hot on the heels of the Feltex decision vindicating the right of directors to rely on advice,1 the New South Wales Court of Appeal has released a judgment that considers in some detail what happens when there are gaps in advice, or the advice is based on unchallenged assumptions.

The findings underline that director and officer liability will always depend on the particular context. But there are some broader lessons to be drawn.

The case of Morley v Australian Securities and Investments Commission2 was heralded by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) as examining "the fundamental responsibilities of public companies and of both executive officers and non-executive directors".3

We agree, but the Court of Appeal does not set out to draw any bright lines: perhaps the most important lesson from NSW is that responsibility will always be a contextual question. The judgment is a 1,156-paragraph opus that delves deeply into the factual background, making it clear that in Australia, directors' and officers' legal liability will closely reflect their actual share of responsibility in the running of the company.

There are, however, some concrete take-home points:

  • governance members can be liable despite relying on accurate advice. The Court of Appeal found that the company's executive officers had a duty to explain to the board the limits of the advice on which it was relying (in this case, analyses which did not extend to challenging certain key inputs and assumptions)
  • the appeal turned on a question of fact – whether a draft ASX release was approved by the board or not. Diligent and accurate minute-keeping would have resolved the point much sooner, and
  • the Court indicated that directors attending by telephone cannot expect to rely entirely on other directors: if a document arises for resolution, they should either abstain, or obtain a copy and exercise their own judgement.

ASIC also proceeded against the company – James Hardie Industries – on a number of grounds. 4 One notable issue was a breach of continuous disclosure requirements, which may have some resonance in New Zealand given the youth of our continuous disclosure regime.

Background – findings at trial

The cases centre on a 2001 ASX press release by James Hardie Industries. The ASX release outlined a corporate restructure whereby asbestos-related liabilities of the group were transferred to a new entity, the Medical Research and Compensation Foundation (the Foundation). The ASX release conveyed that the Foundation had sufficient funds to satisfy historic asbestos liabilities whereas there was in fact no supportable basis for this statement.

The trial court found that:

  • certain directors had approved the release knowing that it conveyed, or was capable of conveying, full funding
  • other directors, who had participated in the relevant meeting by telephone, failed to either familiarise themselves with the draft announcement or to abstain from voting for its approval
  • the company's General Counsel and CFO were 'officers' of the company, meaning that they had statutory duties to act with reasonable care under the Australian Corporations Act (this result might have been different in New Zealand as the New Zealand Companies Act has no 'officer' category – although 'director' is defined inclusively, and includes "a person occupying the position of director of the company by whatever name called". The legislation can also deem people directors), and
  • both the General Counsel and the CFO had failed to advise the board that advice analysing the Foundation's ability to meet liabilities – while correct – was premised on inputs and assumptions that undermined its usefulness in determining whether the Foundation would be able to meet its obligations.

The defendants were ordered to pay pecuniary penalties of A$30,000-A$70,000, and were disqualified from managing a corporation for between five and seven years.

The decision on appeal

The appeal turned on whether or not the directors had in fact approved the ASX release. The Court of Appeal allowed the directors' appeals, but dismissed the General Counsel's and CFO's appeals in respect of advising the board.

ASIC is seeking special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.

Liability of non-executive directors an evidential issue

The directors owed their success to the Court's view of the evidence and of the threshold of proof that ASIC is required to meet in regulatory proceedings of this type. The Court found that there was insufficient evidence to say that the board had approved the draft announcement, although if it had been approved the directors would have been in breach.

The Court of Appeal's view of the proper evidentiary and procedural approach to civil proceedings of this type was key to its conclusions. In particular, the Court found that:

  • although ASIC does not bear the same duties as a prosecutor, who is required to act far more neutrally than a civil advocate, 5 ASIC's position imports a duty of fairness to defendants, and greater neutrality than is usually required in civil proceedings
  • ASIC should have called one of the lawyers at the relevant meeting as a witness to whether or not the directors had in fact approved the ASX release, and
  • these types of penalty proceedings are likely to require proof beyond the ordinary civil 'balance of probabilities' standard. Higher standards of proof are common in cases where the allegations are particularly grave (e.g. fraud), but it is useful to see an Australian court recognise civil penalty cases as demanding more than the usual level of certainty. Exactly what the higher standard requires is a more difficult question. Thresholds of proof are notoriously difficult to put into words – the Court discussed a number of prior cases, each of which tended to express the additional element in a different way. In summarising, the Court used the language of "comfortable satisfaction" and/or "reasonable satisfaction" as to the accuracy of ASIC's allegations.

This guidance from New South Wales should be welcomed, as civil penalties form a growing part of New Zealand's commercial law, with pecuniary penalty offences in the Commerce Act, Securities Act and Securities Markets Act (although the Companies Act currently primarily relies on private enforcement, and other commercial statutes are still based around summary offences).

Civil penalties remain a slightly awkward area of the law, with judges not always sure exactly where these cases fall between a criminal law standard and ordinary civil principles.

Regulators should review their approach in light of the Court of Appeal's comments. At present, the Commerce Commission adopts a Model Litigant Policy6 mandating "an even-handed approach in the handling of litigation" and eschewing tactical actions, but this Policy adds little if anything to the ethical rules applicable to all trial lawyers.

Lessons for New Zealand directors

In the wake of the Feltex decision, New Zealand Shareholders Association Chairman John Hawkins questioned the value of directors if they have no legal liability in cases where advice is taken, saying:

"If directors can rely entirely on outside advisers then that begs the question of why directors have to be paid so well for exercising their judgement".

One answer is that the board is responsible for spotting any gaps between the various pieces of advice it receives. In the Morley case, responsibility (and liability) fell on the General Counsel and CFO for failing to point out to the board that the advice upon which the Foundation's capitalisation was calculated was based on untested inputs and assumptions.

Under New Zealand law, responsibility for identifying relevant issues falls primarily on directors. Our Companies Act does not recognise the 'officer' category under which the General Counsel and CFO were found liable (although the definition of director includes 'de facto' or 'shadow' directors). Section 138 of the Companies Act makes clear that a director may rely on advice only if acting in good faith with no reason to assume that reliance is unwarranted, and – importantly – only if proper inquiry has been made where the need for inquiry is indicated by the circumstances. Where advice is based on a long list of assumptions, inquiry may well be warranted into the reasonableness of those assumptions.

The case against the company: relevance for upcoming New Zealand continuous disclosure cases?

The Court of Appeal's judgment in the case against the company upheld the trial judge's finding that the delay in disclosing details of the restructure breached the Corporations Act, underlining that the test for whether information requires disclosure is objective: it ultimately comes down to whether a judge thinks that the information was sufficiently material at the relevant time, not the issuer's view:

"That the party with the obligation to disclose might convince itself that information would not be expected to have a material effect on ... its securities, does not answer the question whether the material was disclosable".

New Zealand law is broadly the same. These types of claims would be dealt with by the Securities Commission under the 2008 additions to the Securities Markets Act 1988, which give statutory force to the continuous disclosure provisions of any applicable listing rules.

These new provisions have created an emerging area of litigation in which the initial results are difficult to predict. Although the test for materiality is objective, there may still be plenty of room for argument where the information in question is contingent or predictive. 7 What's more, the volatile conditions that might allow directors to take a view that forecast information is not material are exactly the conditions in which investor action is more likely.

Three cases currently before the courts are:

  • Nuplex - the Securities Commission alleges that from 22 December 2008 until 19 February 2009 Nuplex Industries Limited breached its continuous disclosure obligations under the NZX Listing Rules and the Securities Markets Act 1988 by failing to disclose to the market a breach of a banking covenant8
  • Nufarm - New Zealand investors have joined an Australian class action against Nufarm Limited, an Australian based company, alleging breach of continuous disclosure obligations, and misleading and deceptive conduct. In mid-2010 Nufarm halved its profit forecast from March. Shares dropped by more than 30%. The class action claims that Nufarm lacked reasonable grounds for its March forecast, and delayed announcing the decreased forecast in breach of its obligations, and
  • Insured Group (formerly Lombard Group) - the Securities Commission this week began civil proceedings against Insured in relation to Lombard Group's alleged non-disclosure in 2007 and 2008 of material financial information, such as loan book quality and liquidity. This should be a warning to companies to do due diligence before back door listings, as Insured Group did not buy Lombard Group until 2010 – two years after the alleged breaches occurred. The Commission did not directly advise Insured that it was investigating Lombard but did inform the market more generally that it was investigating all failed finance companies.

1. MED v Feeney and Ors. See also our Brief Counsel on the Feltex case and our Brief Counsel on its import for other directors

2. Morley & Ors v Australian Securities and Investments Commission

3. ASIC Media Release 10-273MR, 17 December 2010

4. James Hardie Industries NV v Australian Securities and Investments Commission

5. In New Zealand the duties of the prosecutor are informed by the Prosecution Guidelines 2010 published by Crown Law Office. The Prosecution Guidelines emphasise the prosecutor's role as an officer of the court. A prosecutor is less entitled than a civil advocate to act in an adversarial manner, because the role of a prosecutor is to protect the public interest, which includes promoting fairness to an accused: "[t]he obtaining of a conviction is a consequence, not the object of a prosecution". Available at www.crownlaw.govt.nz

6. Available at www.comcom.govt.nz

7. For example NZSX/NZDX Listing Rule 10.1.1 requires immediate disclosure of any Material Information, but not in circumstances when a reasonable person would not consider disclosure necessary (yet), or the information remains a matter of supposition, or is insufficiently definite to warrant disclosure

8. See also our Brief Counsel on the Nuplex case

The information in this article is for informative purposes only and should not be relied on as legal advice. Please contact Chapman Tripp for advice tailored to your situation.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions