Company Insolvencies

One of the criticisms that is often made of the UK’s complex insolvency legislation is that it is too easy for the directors of a company to put it into liquidation or administration, ‘dump’ the company’s debts and then effectively start the same business again under the guise of a new company. Such phoenixism has often been of concern to HMRC both in the civil and criminal fields and prosecutions have been made against directors who have undertaken such activities on a repeated basis.

Personal Liability Notices (‘PLNs’)

What are the proposed changes to rules on transfer of ownership?

The key takeaway

The Law Commission’s proposed changes are likely to improve consumers’ odds of owning goods bought online in the event of retailer insolvency, even before they have left the retailer’s possession.

The background

A recent High Court case involving unlawful loans to directors illustrates the potential pitfalls involved in calculating limitation periods, and the circumstances in which the usual six year statutory limitation period will not apply to a recovery claim against a fiduciary.

Facts

Broadside Colours and Chemicals Ltd was a family firm supplying dyes to the textile trade. The directors were Geoffrey Button, his wife Catherine Button, and their son James Button. Only the father and son were shareholders.

An application to admit witness evidence outside the directions timetable should be treated like an application for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 according to the High Court in Wolf Rock (Cornwall) Ltd v Langhelle.

Facts

On 21 May 2010, Justice Floyd handed down his judgment in Bloomsbury International Ltd (in administration) v Mark Alan Holyoake.1 The case sheds light on the circumstances in which it is appropriate for a cross-undertaking provided by administrators on behalf of an insolvent company to be fortifi ed by a bank guarantee.

Facts

In March 2020, Business Secretary Alok Sharma announced that provisions on wrongful trading would be suspended. The move came as part of a wider package of measures that sought to provide assistance to businesses – and their beleaguered boards – experiencing financial distress due to Covid-19.

Now set out in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA), which was passed on 26 June 2020, the provisions adapt the wrongful trading regime making directors’ liability for the “relevant period” unlikely.

Why does it matter?

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act ("the Act") came into expedited effect on 26 June 2020 and is intended to maximise the chance of corporate survival and reduce the threat of personal liability on directors during this unprecedented economic crisis.

D&O insurers should be clear about one thing: this Act will not help them and in fact it could well make things worse.

The Act

The government has introduced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill in Parliament, which will put in place a series of measures. This includes temporarily removing the threat of personal The liability for wrongful trading from directors trying to keep their companies afloat through the emergency. 

On 28 March 2020 the Business Secretary announced further new far-reaching measures to help businesses combat the financial impact of COVID-19.

In a welcome intervention, the Business Secretary declared it was the government’s intention to suspend wrongful trading provisions and to introduce a moratorium for businesses undergoing a restructuring process. Both measures are intended to assist companies to trade through financial distress caused by the loss of business due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Concerns regarding the strength of UK supply chains and the consequences which arise when links in the chain fail, are not new and were recently subject to significant scrutiny in the context of Brexit negotiations. But with COVID-19 causing a host of new problems for already stressed supply chains, what can businesses do to protect themselves?