Although the contentious background to the applications to restrain the presentation of two winding up petitions heard together in (but only listed singularly as) the case of Shorts Gardens LLB v London Borough of Camden Council [2020] EWHC 1001 (Ch) is somewhat unusual, these cases nonetheless raise some interesting points of principle which may be used by the courts in determining whether it is appropriate to restrain or dismiss a winding up petition due to COVID-19.
As businesses and companies in the UK face an uncertain few weeks and months with unprecedented pressures, it can be easy for directors to panic and not know where to turn.
To assist in decision-making, we give a reminder of the law in this area, and some signposts for those seeking help.
In this briefing, we give a short reminder of statutory duties owed by UK directors under the Companies Act 2006, the potential risks of continuing to trade while possibly insolvent, and actions that should be taken in order to mitigate those risks.
Directors’ duties
Hot on the heels of our April 2020 article on the proposed reintroduction of the Crown preference, Parliament has recently approved legislation that will increase the ring-fenced amount available to unsecured creditors on an insolvency of a company from £600,000 to £800,000.
In our last article, which can be found here, we reported on the government’s intention to give HMRC priority in the recovery of certain debts (including VAT, PAYE, Employee NICs, and Construction Industry Scheme deductions ) in insolvency proceedings.
In the landmark decision in Re Systems Building Services Group Limited [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch), ICC Judge Barber held that the duties of a director survive the insolvency of a company.
A New York State Administrative Law Judge has denied an application for costs and fees filed by a petitioner who had succeeded in substantially reducing the asserted tax liability through settlement. Matter of Frank M. Grillo, DTA No. 823237 (N.Y.S. Div. of Tax App., Nov. 3, 2011). The decision turned on whether the position of the Department of Taxation and Finance was substantially justified, and that, in turn, depended upon whether the Department had used the correct address when it sent the Notice of Determination to the petitioner.