Misfeasance - winding up, Business Law and Ethics

Misfeasance:

Under s.324, misfeasance proceedings may be instituted against a director, promoter, manager, liquidator or "officer" (including an auditor) of a company in liquidation either to recover the company's property from him or to claim compensation for the loss to the company caused by his misfeasance.

The most obvious case of misfeasance is where a director or other officer of the company is found to have misappropriated property of the company.  He can be compelled by misfeasance proceedings to return it.  His conduct may also be criminal misappropriation of property for which he can be prosecuted.

The other type of misfeasance case is where the company has suffered loss owing to the incompetence or neglect of a director or other officer.  It is not however easy to establish that there has been breach of a fiduciary duty such that an order should be made (on grounds of misfeasance) for payment of compensation.  For some lesser default the liquidator could bring an action for negligence.

In the context of misfeasance proceedings an auditor is exceptionally an "officer" who can be liable: he is not an "officer" in any other situation since he has no management functions.

A receiver is not an "officer" who can be held liable (if the company later goes into liquidation) for misfeasance.

                                      Case. RE B JOHNSON & JOHNSON CO (BUILDERS) (1955)

Misfeasance proceeds were brought against a receiver on the ground that he had in his management of the company's business taken decisions which were "detrimental from the company's point of view", eg. closing down parts of its business. 

Held:

A receiver is a representative of the secured creditors by or for whom he is appointed.  He is not an officer of the company who can be liable for misfeasance. If however a receiver does not act bona fide (ie. honestly) the company might have a claim against him but not misfeasance.

Posted Date: 1/15/2013 5:52:14 AM | Location : United States







Related Discussions:- Misfeasance - winding up, Assignment Help, Ask Question on Misfeasance - winding up, Get Answer, Expert's Help, Misfeasance - winding up Discussions

Write discussion on Misfeasance - winding up
Your posts are moderated
Related Questions
Deadlock in the management: The company existed only to "work a particular patent" and as it could not do so it should be wound up. But if there are two or more alternative

Shares Issued At A Premium: A company may at times issue its shares at a price above their nominal value, i.e at a premium. This may be necessitated by the fact that the compa

For the transactions provided below for the Braves Corporation during 2011, complete the following steps of the accounting cycle (round all answers and journal entries to the neare

Criminal Law: However criminal law has been defined as the law of crimes.  So a crime has been defined just like an act or omission or committed, omitted in violation of publi

Reduction of Capital:   4.1 The general rule is that it is illegal for a company to reduce its capital. This is so because such a reduction would be tantamount to reducing

Arbitral Award However the decision of the arbitral tribunal is referred to like an arbitral award. Therefore the terms of employment really require the arbitrator that must m

Determine the Case against Coordination Coming again to EMU platform we find some arguments against coordination also. For example, the core of the argument against coordinatio

Important points - Contractual Capacity of Drunken Persons Here the following points should be notice for as: Ratification Well a drunken man who enters into

Liquidators' Powers:                                       The liquidator (in any type of liquidation) has numerous statutory powers but in the exercise of some of them he mus

Alteration of Capital: A company is empowered by S.63 to alter the provisions of its memorandum of association which relates to its registered or authorised capital. However,