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.
This is often a question for faced by office-holders of insolvent companies when investigating a company’s affairs, and more of a concern for former directors and shareholders when potentially facing a claim for the return of unlawful dividends or misfeasance.
The Directors of a Company that cannot pay its debts can choose to put the Company into voluntary liquidation. Indeed Directors have statutory responsibilities not to permit a Company to trade insolvently. If they allow the Company to trade insolvently they can become personally liable for the debts.
A creditor can also put a company debtor into compulsory liquidation. The amount owed must be not less than £750 and the creditor must either have an admission that the debt is owed, or a Court judgment.
The recent decision of the English High Court in the case of Fry v Sherry [2012] (In the matter of Ruscoe Ltd (In Liquidation)) serves as a timely reminder of the potential personal liabilities faced by directors should they breach their fiduciary duties.
Summary of the facts
Bilta (UK) Ltd in liquidation) & others v Muhammad Nazir & others [30.07.12]
High Court refuses to accept that a claim by an insolvent one-man company against its director for breach of his duties would be barred by ex turpi causa.
Bilta had two directors, one of whom owned all the company’s issued shares, effectively making it a "one-man company". The directors used Bilta to perpetrate a huge VAT fraud which left the company owing £38 million to HMRC. As a result, it was placed into insolvent liquidation.
In these parlous economic times, more businesses are facing increased financial pressure, resulting in periods of stressful trading. In such cases, consideration needs to be given to the development of a sound strategy that allows the company to successfully continue to trade and pay its creditors.
The purpose of this article is to address some of the “tools” available to assist directors in the restructuring of a company.
The issues concerning validity of appointment, which arose following the decision in Minmar Limited v Khalastchi have been considered in a number of recent cases, most recently BXL Services Limited [2012] EWHC 1877 (Ch).
The recent case of F Options Ltd v Prestwood Properties Ltd concerned the setting aside of a transaction as a preference under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
A preference arises when a company's creditor is put in a better position than they would otherwise have been in the event of the company's insolvency. Transactions may be a preference whether or not the parties are connected, but where it can be shown that there is a connection within section 249 of the Insolvency Act 1986, two important advantages are gained:
The law allows any person to be treated as a director even though that person has not been formally appointed as a director. Such directors are known as de-facto directors. By contrast, a de jure director is a person who has been validly appointed as a director.
The recent case of Re Snelling House Ltd (In Liquidation) [2012] EWHC 440 (Ch) serves as a useful reminder to consider possible claims against de-facto directors who may be acting under the wrong impression that they are beyond reprehension.
The facts