29 April 2016

Fair Trading: Commerce Commission v. NZ Nutritionals

Christchurch-based NZ Nutritionals breached the Fair Trading Act when touting dietary supplements containing imported ingredients as “New Zealand made”
The High Court ruled the description “NZ made” when applied to food products implies that all ingredients are sourced locally.  Goats’ milk tablets and goats’ milk powder sold by the company used goats’ milk sourced from Spain and the Netherlands.  Product was processed in New Zealand into tablet form or bagged for retail sale as powder, with further chemicals added to both products.  Product packaging talked up the product as “100% New Zealand made” and “100% NZ made and proud of it”.   Justice Venning said online and retail consumers would take from this labelling that the product was processed in New Zealand from locally sourced goats’ milk.
NZ Nutritionals said these labels are no longer used.     
Commerce Commission v. NZ Nutritionals (2004) Ltd – High Court (29.04.16)

16.068

Directors: Grant v. Johnston

Directors making an honest but ultimately fruitless effort to rescue insolvent companies are treated sympathetically by the courts when assessing damages.
A non-executive director of NZNet Internet Services Ltd did not have to pay any damages despite being in breach of directors’ duties before the company went into liquidation in November 2011 with unpaid debts of some $1.08 million.  Three NZNet directors were held liable in the High Court for breaches of the Companies Act; managing director and majority shareholder Mr Stephen Andrews was held liable for $1.08 million (for acting recklessly and in breach of his duty of care as a director); marketing director Mr George Thomas was held liable for $83,800 (for failing to look after creditors’ interests in the last three months of the company’s life); and financial adviser and non-executive director Mr Rowan Johnston was held liable for acting recklessly as a director, but was not ordered to pay damages.  He had lent over $460,000 of his own money to the company in a failed attempt to turn round the business.  The debt owed him by NZNet exceeded any loss attributable to his breach of directors’ duties.
Liquidators Waterstone Insolvency appealed the High Court ruling that Mr Johnston was not liable to contribute cash despite being held to have acted recklessly.
Evidence was given that majority shareholder Mr Andrews sought financial help from Mr Johnston for NZNet two years before the company went into liquidation.  The company was short of cash.  The two were personal friends of over 30 years standing.  With degrees in economics and finance, Mr Johnstone was employed by Forsyth Barr.  He agreed to inject $220,000 equity capital into the business after asking searching questions of Mr Andrews about the company’s financial position.  He was to later learn on becoming a non-executive director that Mr Andrews had lied: tax debts were seriously understated and there was no full disclosure of the extent of company spending on Mr Andrews’ corporate credit card.  A manic period of fire-fighting followed as Mr Johnstone kept pouring his own money into the company to pay pressing company debts.  He spent weekends free of his Forsyth Barr responsibilities attempting to identify NZNet’s current financial position, to finalise budgets to achieve profitable trading and to find ways to boost future revenue.  After Mr Andrews’ unilateral decision to commit the company to an advertising contract costing some $89,800, NZNet went into liquidation insolvent.
The Court ruled that a non-executive director cannot be liable for trading recklessly where the company’s true financial position is not known, despite reasonable enquries, because of concealment by other directors or by senior management.  By contrast, a “sleeping” director who does not make any attempt to ask questions or make enquiries will be liable.
The Court said Mr Johnston made a thorough assessment of the company before becoming a director.  He had no way of knowing at that point that his long-standing friend was lying about the company’s financial position and its prospects.  He had no independent way of knowing the true state of the company’s tax debts.
Six months into his involvement with the company, Mr Johnston had a better picture of the company’s difficult financial position, the Court said.  He then used his expertise and best endeavours to improve the company’s position including paying company debts and seeking to improve its financial management.  A further six months on, Mr Johnston should have been aware there was little hope, the Court said.  Sales were growing, but so too did mounting evidence of Mr Andrew’s ill-disciplined and incompetent management.  Mr Johnston should have resigned, the Court said.  He was reckless and in breach of creditor interests to carry on from this point.  Mr Johnston was liable to contribute to creditor losses arising from this date.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the earlier High Court ruling that any damages payable for a breach of directors’ duties beyond this point were less than the $460,000 Mr Johnston had lent the company to meet pressing debts.  He was not required to contribute further.  In the liquidation, Mr Johnston is the company’s biggest creditor.
Grant v. Johnston – Court of Appeal (29.04.16)

16.070

Tax: Grant v. Johnston

By failing to chase up tax debts and just letting accrued penalties add up, Inland Revenue contributes to its own lossses when a business goes belly-up, the Court of Appeal said.  The court showed little sympathy for liquidators’ claims that slack directors should be sued for all they are worth when Inland Revenue as a major unpaid creditor is just as slack, doing nothing and content to sit on its statutory rights adding substantial penalties for late payments.
The Court of Appeal told Waterstone Insolvency, liquidators of NZNet Internet Services Ltd, that the amount of damages awarded against company directors for any breach of directors’ duties requires an assessment of causation, culpability and ultimately fairness.  Where one of the largest debts is unpaid taxes, liability does not fall so heavily on non-executive directors since they do not control day-to-day company activities.
Grant v. Johnston – Court of Appeal (29.04.16)

16.069

27 April 2016

Fishing: McLellan v. Attorney-General

Scampi fishermen prejudiced by bureaucratic bungling in the 1990s lost heavily when turning down government offers of ex gratia compensation.  Compensation offers lapsed during attempts to negotiate a higher offer, subsequent litigation failed and they were required to compensate government for part of its one million dollar legal costs.
A lack of co-ordination and consistency between Fisheries regional offices in the early 1990s saw different regimes around the country governing scampi fishing.  This extended to some regions issuing permits in respect of waters under the jurisdiction of other regional offices.  With this general confusion, some applications for scampi fishing permits were not processed before an October 1990 moratorium came into effect.  Some fishers were left without a permit when scampi came under the quota management system.  They cried foul, demanding compensation.
Complaints to a parliamentary select committee led to ex gratia offers of compensation.  The High Court was to learn some scampi fishers made a tactical decision to turn down the offers in the hope of getting a better deal: Pranfield Holdings turned down $900,000, United Fisheries and Mr Noel McLellan turned down $400,000 each.  It was not until September 2008 that government decided offers would not be increased.  Attempts to get judicial review of this decision failed, leaving the three fishers liable to contribute towards government’s legal costs. Mr McLelland was ordered to pay $16,100, with Pranfield Holdings and United Fisheries jointly liable to pay $11,700.
McLellan v. Attorney General – High Court (27.04.16)

16.067

26 April 2016

Fraud: Thompson & Duzevich v. R.

The Court of Appeal upheld sentences of 33 months imprisonment for Sydney Phillip Thompson and Janlyn Maryanne Duzevich.  Both pleaded guilty to fraud after colluding with beneficiaries to rip-off WINZ.
Thompson and Duzevich jointly received advance payments from WINZ of some $380,600 for goods and services they were supposedly providing to beneficiaries.  Cash received was split with beneficiaries in the knowledge that quotes were going in the rubbish bin and nothing would be delivered.
The court was told Thompson and Duzevich obtained “known-provider” status with WINZ initially for the supply of second-hand furniture and later for dental treatment and optometry services.  Armed with fictitious quotations from Thompson and Duzevich, beneficiaries would get WINZ advance approval with money paid direct to businesses operated by the two.  Beneficiaries typically got in cash 75 per cent of the WINZ payout; Thompson and Duzevich keeping the rest.  Quoted goods or services were not provided.  Between them, the two pocketed $95,160.
WINZ recovered $59,396 from Thompson under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act after the sale of his home.
Thompson & Duzevich v. R – Court of Appeal (26.04.16)

16.066