This timely work is the first to comprehensively examine directors' responsibilities to creditors in times of financial strife, as well as addressing when these responsibilities arise, and what directors should have to do to ensure that they comply with their obligations. Keay explores the relevant issues from doctrinal, normative and comparative perspectives and addresses the question as to when directors are liable for wrongful trading, fraudulent trading or breach of their duties to creditors and whether directors should be held responsible for the before mentioned. Besides the relevant UK legislation and case law, legislation and case law from Australia, Canada, Ireland and the United States are examined and compared and reforms which take into account the aims and rationale of the relevant legislation as well as creditors' interests are proposed and assessed. Importantly, new approaches for courts which would make the nature of the responsibility and its timing more precise are suggested. Company directors have certain responsibilities to creditors of their companies. In particular, they should avoid fraudulent and wrongful trading and consider, as part of their duties, the interests of creditors when their companies might be, or are, in financial difficulty. The work is precipitated by the lack of coherence in the consideration of wrongful trading and the recent delivery of important cases on fraudulent trading. Also, this timely work is the first to comprehensively examine directors' responsibilities to creditors in times of financial strife, as well as addressing when these responsibilities arise, and what directors should have to do to ensure that they comply with their obligations. Keay explores the relevant issues from doctrinal, normative and comparative perspectives and seeks to address the question as to when directors are liable for wrongful trading, fraudulent trading or breach of their duties to creditors and whether directors should be held responsible for wrongful trading and failing to consider the interests of creditors. Besides the relevant UK legislation and case law, legislation and case law from Australia, Canada, Ireland and the United States are examined and compared, and reforms which take into account the aims and rationale of the relevant legislation as well as creditors' interests are proposed and assessed. Importantly, new approaches for courts which would make the nature of the responsibility and its timing more precise are suggested.

Essay from the year 2006 in the subject Law - Comparative Legal Systems, Comparative Law, grade: A, Victoria University of Wellington, course: LLM Research Paper, Master Abschlussarbeit, language: English, abstract: This essay deals with directors’ duties, focusing on the duties that specially arise in the context of a company becoming insolvent. The relevant duties are those under sections 131, 135 and 136 of the Companies Act 1993. The drafting of these insolvent trading provisions in New Zealand has been criticised in the legal literature. This research paper considers not only this criticism but also deals with the more general debate about the value of insolvent trading provisions in general. Although the current drafting of the relevant provisions in New Zealand is not without minor flaws, the need for creditor protection requires the maintenance of insolvent trading provisions in general. Besides that, this essay looks at the remedies for breaches of directors’ duties. The most important provision in this context is s 301 Companies Act 1993. Pursuant to this provision both the liquidator and individual creditors can enforce directors’ civil liability. However, the possibilities of individual creditors to obtain payment directly to themselves are restricted. The final part of this essay considers the question whether a separate duty directly owed to individual creditors should be introduced. Although such a duty seems to have some benefits, it would not be commensurate with leading principles and ideas of Insolvency Law and should therefore not be introduced. It is the concern of this research paper to point out the many issues that arise in context of directors’ duties and insolvency law and to show that it is important to strike an appropriate balance between the intended creditor protection and the entrepreneurial freedom of company directors.

This Article offers an explanation of the doctrine of directors' duties to creditors. Courts frequently say - but rarely hold - that corporate directors owe duties to or for the benefit of corporate creditors when the corporation is in distress. These cases are puzzling for at least two reasons.First, they link fiduciary duty to priority in right of payment, effectively treating creditors as if they were shareholders, at least for certain purposes. But this ignores the fact that priority is a complex and volatile concept. Moreover, contract and other rights at law usually protect creditors, even (especially) when a firm is distressed. It is thus not surprising that courts do not in fact want to treat directors as fiduciaries for creditors, except in extreme cases. But this leaves us with the second puzzle: If directors are rarely treated as fiduciaries for creditors, why have the Delaware courts bothered to say so much about this, especially in their recent opinions?This Article explores these two puzzles, and argues that these cases are best understood as examples of expressive judging, exhortations to good behavior not necessarily tethered to meaningful instrumental consequences. It identifies four expressive themes in these decisions on, among other things, director discretion, the boundaries of acceptable conduct towards creditors, the role of contract, and the educative function of courts. The Article concludes by noting several doctrinal gaps created by some of the recent case law, and suggests ways that the better expressive aspirations of the Delaware opinions can fill these gaps in fair and efficient ways.

This title was first published in 2000. The law relating to directors’ duties has fundamental implications across the business environment and yet few areas of business law have received so little detailed examination. This text provides fresh and incisive insights to the rules applying in ten major economic jurisdictions within Europe, with respect to directors’ legal obligations and liabilities. Written by the foremost figures in the field, each contribution outlines the statutory provisions that affect the work of company directors in each jurisdiction, including general legislation and specific laws covering the status of incorporated bodies. Fully illustrated with case-law examples the book provides a guide to the range of measures which national courts may provide for participants in corporate life seeking remedies for unsatisfactory governance of companies. It also features guidance on the specific bases for criminal and civil liabilities and examples of the range of penalties to which directors might be subject. The result is a work of unprecedented detail which will be welcomed by practitioners in the corporate sector, academics and researchers alike.