Key point

The UK Government has published its response to their July 2013 consultation on restoring transparency and trust in the UK corporate governance regime. There are a number of proposals to widen the scope of the director disqualification regime and make recovery of losses by creditors from responsible directors easier.

The response

Insolvent Defendants

Corporate Insolvency

Dissolution

1. Corporate bodies (limited companies or LLPs) have a separate legal identity that ceases to exist upon dissolution. Dissolution can occur, broadly speaking, in two ways, one is at the end of the process of winding up (whether voluntary or compulsory) and the other is by the process of striking off the Register of Companies 

or limited liability partnerships. The latter occurs either as a result of the company’s

Yesterday the UK Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”) published  the final text of some significant changes to the Listing Rules.1 The changes, which will come into force on 16 May 2014, are intended to enhance the effectiveness of the UK listing regime, particularly in situations where the rights of minority shareholders are at risk of being abused, and to address concerns in relation to the potential influence of 

controlling shareholders on UK listed companies, while ensuring that London remains an attractive listing 

venue.

The English Court of Appeal decision in Caterpillar v John Holt & Company, and its analysis of “retention of title” and “no set-off” clauses, will be of interest to commodity traders, compliance officers and legal counsel in industries dealing with energy and natural resources internationally.

New measures intended to be implemented by the FCA next year, will have a significant impact on companies with controlling shareholders who are premium listed and also on those companies considering joining the premium segment. They follow the regulator's assessment of the premium listing regime over the last couple of years, as it considered how to bolster minority shareholder protection without risking damage to London's attractiveness as a listing venue. 

The context - validity of appointment of administrators

The appointment of administrators under a charge prevents a company’s directors from exercising any management powers without the administrator’s consent.
However, the charge must be enforceable at the time of the administrators’ appointment. What happens if the directors dispute that the charge was enforceable? Are they prevented from controlling the company to reject the appointment.

The background

Following insolvency, creditors and the (now insolvent) company can claim back losses from directors who breached their duties prior to the business breaking down. But it is not just formal directors – it is any individuals who actually control the company and have made themselves ‘shadow directors’ by doing so. In this way, creditors can recoup funds to meet the company’s debts from the individual directors who caused the loss of such funds.

Bilta (UK) Limited (Bilta) and its liquidators brought a claim against the defendants for damages and equitable compensation on the basis of conspiracy to defraud and injure Bilta and for dishonest assistance by (among others) the 6th and 7th defendants in breach of fiduciary duties by Bilta's directors. The defendants argued that the unlawful conduct of Bilta's directors and sole shareholder could be attributed to the company itself, meaning that the action brought by Bilta and its liquidators would fail.

The Government has recently published a discussion paper, ‘Transparency & Trust: Enhancing the transparency of UK company ownership and increasing trust in UK business’, inviting feed-back on a number of proposals concerning the transparency of company ownership and control, enforcement of directors’ duties and compensation of creditors.  Among other things, the Government proposes to:  

The majority of businesses have periods of stress and distress during their life cycle. The keys to managing these periods to achieve a successful profitable business are recognition, decision and implementation.

In most cases, management are aware (from available internal management information) of issues arising before they do in terms of a potential reduction in revenue or increase in cost. Once these periods are recognised management can move to address them by taking decisions to manage the situation to a positive outcome.