The Dáil Public Accounts Committee has issued a report which primarily examined the loss of "Fiduciary" taxes (such as PRSI and PAYE) arising from company insolvency. The Committee concluded that there is a need in Ireland to introduce further measures to reduce the amount of Fiduciary taxes that are lost due to the irresponsible behaviour of directors. There is a need, according to the report, for the introduction of a deterrent which will make directors aware of the negative consequences which could arise for them if they wilfully evade paying the company taxes that are due.

Last week the Supreme Court overturned Mr Justice McGovern's recent decision in the Linen Supply of Ireland examinership that the current legislation does not permit the repudiation of leases in an examinership. The case has now been remitted back to the High Court to consider whether, in the specific case before it, the leases ought to be repudiated in order for a scheme of arrangement to be formulated.

Recent attempts by the Zoe Group to seek court protection have raised the profile of examinerships. The main legal test to enter the process is: does the company have a reasonable prospect of survival. But what are the key ingredients for a successful examinership?

In 2005, Parliament passed a comprehensive package of reforms to Canadian insolvency and restructuring laws. The purpose of these amendments was to provide additional protections for employees, codify existing case law and practice, bolster the proposal process and conform Canadian laws concerning cross-border insolvencies to international practice.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) has decided that the sale of a business by way of a pre-pack administration[1] did not result in a transfer of employees under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, (TUPE Regulations or TUPE).

TUPE Regulations

On 4 March 2009, the Office of Public Sector Information published the Bank Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2009 (the Rules) and accompanying explanatory memorandum. The Rules came into force on 25 February 2009 and give effect in England and Wales to the new bank insolvency procedure under Part 2 of the Banking Act 2009.

Liquidators will welcome the recent decision of the Director of Corporate Enforcement to reduce their reporting requirement in cases where a decision has been definitively made either to relieve or not relieve them of their statutory obligation to take restriction proceedings against a company's directors.

Introduction

This Note deals with the potential liabilities under English Law of the directors and officers (secretary and managers) of a UK company in the event of its (potential) insolvency.  

Summary  

Directors - and, to a lesser extent, other officers of a company - face a number of areas of potential personal liability. Of most relevance is the liability of the directors for ‘wrongful trading’.  

The priorities of some pension claims on bankruptcy and receivership changed as a result of amendments effective July 8, 2008 to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act R.S.C. (Canada) (the “BIA”).  

Priority Before the Amendments

The decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal earlier this year in Slater Steel* exposed 10 directors, officers and employees to possible personal liability of $20 million with no meaningful recourse against the insolvent Slater Steel or its assets. This is a reminder that failure to recognize and fulfill fiduciary obligations for a pension plan can expose you to substantial personal liability.