29 April 2016

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