Re AIC Merchant Finance Ltd (in rec)

Last updated

Re AIC Merchant Finance Ltd (in rec)
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
Court Court of Appeal of New Zealand
Full case nameAIC Merchant Finance Ltd (in receivership); National Mutual Life Nominees Ltd v Frederick Nelson Watson & John Gilmour Tuck as receivers of AIC Merchant Finance Ltd
Decided29 November 1989
Citation(s)[1990] 2 NZLR 385 (1990) 5 NZCLC 66,153
Transcript(s) Court of Appeal judgment
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Richardson J, Casey J, Doogue

Re AIC Merchant Finance Ltd (in rec) [1990] 2 NZLR 385 (1990) 5 NZCLC 66,153 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding relief for Illegal Contracts under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 where validation is not legally possible. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

AIC was a finance company that collapsed in 1986. National Mutual were the trustees for the secured debentured holders. However, briefly between 30 May - 17 July 1986, AIC had not registered with the companies office its new prospectus (no. 3), which was a breach of section 37 of the Securities Act 1978. This technical oversight left the 38 investors that invested $820,000 during this period being unsecured creditors when the company was placed into receivership on 30 August 1986.

National Mutual filed for an order for validation in the High Court, which was refused.

Held

The Court of Appeal again refused validation, as the Securities Act expressly prohibited validation. Richardson J said "[Section] 7 cannot be employed to negate the effect of a provision of the Securities Act. That would be inconsistent with the protection afforded by s 4. It follows that an allotment which is invalid under s 37(4) cannot be validated under s 7." However, as the Securities Act only prohibited validation, and not any other forms of relief, the court granted relief in the form of damages, which was similar to if validation had been granted, effectively granting validation via the back door.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States antitrust law</span> American legal system intended to promote competition among businesses

In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of mostly federal laws that regulate the conduct and organization of businesses to promote competition and prevent unjustified monopolies. The three main U.S. antitrust statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These acts serve three major functions. First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Second, Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Third, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization.

The Investment Company Act of 1940 is an act of Congress which regulates investment funds. It was passed as a United States Public Law on August 22, 1940, and is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 80a-180a-64. Along with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and extensive rules issued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; it is central to financial regulation in the United States. It has been updated by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. It is the primary source of regulation for mutual funds and closed-end funds, now a multi-trillion dollar investment industry. The 1940 Act also impacts the operations of hedge funds, private equity funds and even holding companies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States securities regulation</span> Law and regulations that relate to Securities

Securities regulation in the United States is the field of U.S. law that covers transactions and other dealings with securities. The term is usually understood to include both federal and state-level regulation by governmental regulatory agencies, but sometimes may also encompass listing requirements of exchanges like the New York Stock Exchange and rules of self-regulatory organizations like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

A cause of action or right of action, in law, is a set of facts sufficient to justify suing to obtain money or property, or to justify the enforcement of a legal right against another party. The term also refers to the legal theory upon which a plaintiff brings suit. The legal document which carries a claim is often called a 'statement of claim' in English law, or a 'complaint' in U.S. federal practice and in many U.S. states. It can be any communication notifying the party to whom it is addressed of an alleged fault which resulted in damages, often expressed in amount of money the receiving party should pay/reimburse.

An undervalue transaction is a transaction entered into by a company who subsequently goes into bankruptcy which the court orders be set aside, usually upon the application of a liquidator for the benefit of the debtor's creditors. This can occur where the transaction was seriously disadvantageous to the company and the company was insolvent or in immediate risk of becoming insolvent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom company law</span> Law that regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006

The United Kingdom company law regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006. Also governed by the Insolvency Act 1986, the UK Corporate Governance Code, European Union Directives and court cases, the company is the primary legal vehicle to organise and run business. Tracing their modern history to the late Industrial Revolution, public companies now employ more people and generate more of wealth in the United Kingdom economy than any other form of organisation. The United Kingdom was the first country to draft modern corporation statutes, where through a simple registration procedure any investors could incorporate, limit liability to their commercial creditors in the event of business insolvency, and where management was delegated to a centralised board of directors. An influential model within Europe, the Commonwealth and as an international standard setter, UK law has always given people broad freedom to design the internal company rules, so long as the mandatory minimum rights of investors under its legislation are complied with.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom insolvency law</span> Law in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

United Kingdom insolvency law regulates companies in the United Kingdom which are unable to repay their debts. While UK bankruptcy law concerns the rules for natural persons, the term insolvency is generally used for companies formed under the Companies Act 2006. Insolvency means being unable to pay debts. Since the Cork Report of 1982, the modern policy of UK insolvency law has been to attempt to rescue a company that is in difficulty, to minimise losses and fairly distribute the burdens between the community, employees, creditors and other stakeholders that result from enterprise failure. If a company cannot be saved it is liquidated, meaning that the assets are sold off to repay creditors according to their priority. The main sources of law include the Insolvency Act 1986, the Insolvency Rules 1986, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Employment Rights Act 1996 Part XII, the EU Insolvency Regulation, and case law. Numerous other Acts, statutory instruments and cases relating to labour, banking, property and conflicts of laws also shape the subject.

The mosaic theory in finance involves the use of security analyst personnel to gather information about a company or corporation to evaluate and determine its financial stability. In addition to public information available to all investors, securities analysts also have access to non-public information which the vast majority of investors do not possess. Trading based on such non-public information can be considered illegal if the information is also material, as defined by insider trading laws.

<i>Mall Finance & Investment Co Ltd v Slater</i>

Mall Finance & Investment Co Ltd v Slater [1976] 2 NZLR 685, is a New Zealand case regarding whether a contract entered into to stop a party for filing criminal charge is legally enforceable or not. It is more often cited as Slater v Mall Finance.

<i>Polymer Developments Group Ltd v Tilialo</i>

Polymer Developments Group Ltd v Tilialo [2002] 3 NZLR 258 is a New Zealand case regarding the legality of contracts created to prevent a prosecution, which unlike the earlier similar precedents of Mall Finance v Slater [1976] 2 NZLR 685 and Barsdell v Kerr [1979] 2 NZLR 731, in this case however, although the contract was clearly illegal, relief was granted to the creditor.

<i>Barsdell v Kerr</i>

Barsdell v Kerr [1979] 2 NZLR 731 is New Zealand case frequently cited with Mall Finance v Slater [1976] 2 NZLR 685 and Polymer Developments v Tilialo [2002] 3 NZLR 258 regarding illegal contracts prejudicial to the administration of justice under the Illegal Contracts Act [1970].

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British Virgin Islands company law</span>

The British Virgin Islands company law is the law that governs businesses registered in the British Virgin Islands. It is primarily codified through the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004, and to a lesser extent by the Insolvency Act, 2003 and by the Securities and Investment Business Act, 2010. The British Virgin Islands has approximately 30 registered companies per head of population, which is likely the highest ratio of any country in the world. Annual company registration fees provide a significant part of Government revenue in the British Virgin Islands, which accounts for the comparative lack of other taxation. This might explain why company law forms a much more prominent part of the law of the British Virgin Islands when compared to countries of similar size.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illegal Contracts Act 1970</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Illegal Contracts Act [1970] is a New Zealand law that manages how contracts are deemed illegal under either common law or under Statute.

<i>Harding v Coburn</i>

Harding v Coburn [1976] 2 NZLR 577 was a New Zealand case that was one of the first that upheld that the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 had the power to validate despite the fact that another legal enactment "deemed to be unlawful and shall have no effect".

<i>Engineering Plastics Ltd v J Mercer & Sons Ltd</i>

Engineering Plastics Ltd v J Mercer & Sons Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 72 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding mutual mistake.

<i>National Westminster Finance NZ Ltd v South Pacific Rent-a-Car Ltd</i>

National Westminster Finance NZ Ltd v South Pacific Rent-a-Car Ltd [1985] 1 NZLR 646 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the validation of illegal contracts under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970.

<i>NZI Bank Ltd v Euro-National Corp Ltd</i>

NZI Bank Ltd v Euro-National Corp Ltd [1992] 3 NZLR 528 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding whether a contract illegal under law, can be subsequently validated under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970.

<i>Catley v Herbert</i>

Catley v Herbert [1988] 1 NZLR 606 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding whether a contract illegal under law, can be subsequently validated under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970.

<i>Knyvett v Christchurch Casinos Ltd</i>

Knyvett v Christchurch Casinos Ltd [1999] 2 NZLR 559 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding whether a contract illegal under statute, can be subsequently validated under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970.

<i>Duncan v McDonald</i>

Duncan v McDonald [1997] 3 NZLR 669 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the granting of relief under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 for illegal contracts.

References

  1. Chetwin, Maree; Graw, Stephen; Tiong, Raymond (2006). An introduction to the Law of Contract in New Zealand (4th ed.). Thomson Brookers. p. 357. ISBN   0-86472-555-8.
  2. Walker, Campbell (2004). Butterworths Student Companion Contract (4th ed.). LexisNexis. pp. 164–165. ISBN   0-408-71770-X.