In this week's update: a distribution was valid despite discrepancies in the accounts justifying the dividend and an examination of vexatious resolutions.
Court considers whether demerger by dividend was valid (part 2)
On 11 July 2019, HMRC published a policy paper discussing measures which are aimed at those taxpayers who “unfairly seek to reduce their tax bill by misusing the insolvency of companies”. This will be achieved by making directors and other persons connected to those companies jointly and severally liable for the avoidance, evasion or “phoenixism” debts of the corporate entity.
An explanatory note and draft legislation set out the conditions that must be satisfied in order to enable an authorised HMRC officer to issue a “joint liability notice” to an individual.
The transition from a family business to a family office can be treacherous. In a family business, the family is still involved in the day-to-day operations of the business and is literally “watching the store.” In a family office, the day-to-day operation of the family business and other financial investments and endeavors of the family may be delegated to experts outside of the family. This should create an enhanced level of professionalism and provide institutional safeguards and protections for the family, but can backfire.
The High Court decision in Burnden Holdings clarifies the law on retrospective attacks on the declaration of dividends.
SUMMARY
When can an insolvency practitioner pursue directors for declaring unlawful dividends?
Does an insolvency practitioner need to demonstrate that the directors knew, or ought to have known, that the dividend was paid unlawfully, or is it a strict liability issue?
Can director/shareholders rely on professionally prepared accounts to avoid liability?
The press reported recently that British Steel Limited had been placed into compulsory liquidation putting 5,000 jobs at risk. The Official Receiver took control of the company as part of the liquidation process. We understand that British Steel Limited continues to trade normally, but the limited company was transferred to the Official Receiver because the company did not have sufficient funds to pay for an administration.
A statement from the Official Receiver reported
Reliance Wholesale Ltd v AM2PM Feltham Ltd [2019]
In the recent case of Reliance Wholesale Ltd v AM2PM Feltham Ltd, the High Court provided some much needed guidance and clarification as to how the Court should approach the issues of costs
when a petition debt is dismissed following a payment in full being made by the debtor company, even when such a payment is made ‘under protest’ with no admission of liability as to the petition debt.
Background
Insolvency is a common issue in the construction industry. While newspaper headlines frequently focus on the top ten to 15 large contractor insolvencies, this is not reflective of how insolvency impacts the industry as a whole.
In all construction projects, there is a long tail of smaller contractors that are adversely impacted by an insolvency event that occurs further up the chain. As a result, when parts of the supply chain fall apart, the tremors can be felt by large sections of the industry.
With the introduction of electronic filing which allows parties to file documents at court 24/7 we consider the recent case of Wright v HMV Ecommerce Limited (2019) in which the court was asked to confirm whether administrators were validly appointed following the directors filing a notice of appointment after the court office was closed.
The Electronic Working Pilot Scheme (“EWP“) Practice Direction came into effect in 2015, initially in the London region. It now applies in all Business and Property Courts in England and Wales from 30 April 2019.
As the insolvency profession in Scotland continues to get to grips with the new corporate insolvency rules, Re Sprout Land Holdings Ltd (in Administration) serves as a timely reminder not to forget the basics when dealing with the appointment of administrators by the directors of a company.