There have been a number of recent instances, including this year, of quoted companies calling general meetings to seek shareholder approval to remedy dividends that were paid unlawfully. Invariably these have been for non-compliance with a statutory formality rather than because the company did not have sufficient distributable profits to make the dividend.

Why are companies prepared to suffer the embarrassment and expense of going to their shareholders to fix the breach rather than simply doing nothing?

Julian Kenny QC appeared for the Appellants in the Supreme Court who handed down judgment 11 May, a much anticipated ruling by shipowners and subsidiary companies affected by the OW Bunker collapse.

The judgment affirms the rulings of the Court of Appeal and of first instance Judge, Males J, that a contract for the supply of bunkers that a shipowner had entered into with a subsidiary of the now insolvent OW Bunker company was not one to which the Sale of Goods Act 1979 applies.

Following on from our recent blog post on Ralls Builders Limited (in liquidation) [2016] EWHC 243 (Ch), in which Mr Justice Snowdon discussed the issues around wrongful trading under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the quantum of liability that may be placed on directors who continue to trade when they knew, or ought to have known, that the company was insolvent, the Financial Reporting Council (“FRC”) has issued new guidance on the going concern basis of accounting and reporting on solvency and liquidity risks.

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against a limitation order (providing for the restoration to the register of a dissolved company, C,  and the suspension of the limitation period during dissolution) and provided guidance on how judicial discretion should be exercised when making such an order.

Shortly before being placed into administration C entered into a sale and leaseback arrangement.  C later went into liquidation; however, the purchase price in respect of the sale was not received before the company was dissolved, over four years later.

Welcome to the third article in this amazing series which looks at what you can do to try to extract money from a stubborn business debtor.

There is nothing quite like obtaining a new customer or getting a new big sale - the prospect of recurring revenue from a new source, the validation of business strategy, or the culmination of a successful negotiation.

However, there is nothing more disheartening than when a new customer is unable or unwilling to pay for the product you just shipped or services you just provided. Perhaps there is one thing that is worse, when a long-term customer fails to pay.

Introduction

Generally, directors are focused on making a success of the business to which they are appointed and the prospect of insolvency and the potential for personal liability often seems remote. Indeed, many directors will never have to face the difficult decisions associated with a struggling business. However, when they do, they often rely on the advice of experienced insolvency professionals.

Rise in FRC investigations

For all corporate insolvencies starting on or after 6 April 2016 insolvency office-holders are now required to submit a report on the conduct of anyone who was a director of the insolvent company in the 3 years leading up to the insolvency, irrespective of their conduct. Currently, reports are only required where office-holders consider a director’s conduct makes them unfit to be involved in a company’s management in the future.

Directors of a company are subject to certain duties under the Companies Act 2006. These duties are of obvious importance throughout their service as a director but some of them become particularly important during the period leading up to the insolvency of the company.