On 13thFebruary 2024, the Insolvency Service (IS) released their latest monthly enforcement stats in relation to the directors’ disqualifications. The figures, whilst not surprising highlight some interesting points to note:
Creditors can often confuse (i) the outlawed practice of “phoenixing” with (ii) pre-pack administrations. The former is an abuse of the privilege of limited liability through (often repeatedly) liquidating a company laden with debts only to emerge shortly after under the guise of a new limited company, debt free, effectively carrying on the exact same business with the same name, premises and people.
In the recent case of TMG Brokers Ltd (In Liquidation) (also known as: Baker v Staines) the High Court held a director of a company to be jointly and severally liable for payments made by his co-director out of the company’s bank account which were made without proper authority and amounted to disguised distributions of capital. The fact that he had placed trust in the other director for the company's financial affairs did not excuse him from performing his duties.
Background
…there is nothing to say that directors who genuinely believe that the clouds will roll away and the sunshine of prosperity will shine upon them again and disperse the fog of their depression are not entitled to incur credit to help them to get over the bad time”
The words of Buckley J, Re White & Osmond (Parkstone) Ltd (unreported)
Disputes between directors often arise because of, and/or result in, disputes about company money. Directors need to be alert to how they are required to act, particularly in times of conflict. Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 imposes a broad duty on directors to promote the success of the company however the term “success” is unhelpfully uncertain, especially where the company is in difficulty and/or where the company is wound up.
There has been much mention in the press in recent times about the amount of allegedly incorrect or fraudulent claims made by employers under the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“CJRS”) (furlough scheme).
The current global pandemic has provided and will continue to provide plentiful opportunities for fraud and opportunism. One area which is potentially open to abuse is the protection of companies from the service of statutory demands or the presentation of winding up petitions following the enactment of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA). It is important to consider alternative remedies if a debtor seeks to use this to their advantage.
In the recent case of Re Rhino Enterprises Properties Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 2370 (Ch) the court held that it was at least strongly arguable that a company voluntary arrangement (a “CVA”) was not a contract for the purpose of s.1(1) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (“the C(RTP)A”).
We live in uncertain and financially very troubling times. The coronavirus pandemic and the unprecedented measures put in place to tackle it have caused severe disruption to businesses. Big names such as Harveys, TM Lewin, Intu and the owners of Café Rouge and Bella Italia all went into administration at the beginning of the month. They will not be the last.
It is a sad reality that the Covid-19 Pandemic is likely to lead to a spike in the number of companies being put into insolvency. This has the potential to leave parties with claims against those companies with a reduced prospect of full recovery, even if their claims are strong. As a result, claimants may look for alternative targets, including ways in which they could sue directors personally.