In Petroprod Ltd (in official liquidation in the Cayman Islands and in compulsory liquidation in Singapore) v Larsen Oil and Gas Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 186 the Singapore High Court considered whether an action brought to avoid transactions that allegedly violated insolvency laws should be stayed in favour of arbitration.
In a decision handed down just before the end of term, auditors have won an important House of Lords ruling limiting their liability in cases where a “one man” company is used as a vehicle for fraud. The Law Lords dismissed by a majority of three to two a negligence claim brought against an audit firm for failing to detect a massive fraud at Stone & Rolls, a trading company that fell in the late 1990s – holding that the liquidators could not bring a claim for damages when the company itself was responsible for the fraud.
Background
In a recent opinion (Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co. SAL and others [2009] UKHL 43) handed down in the final days of the House of Lords, their Lordships clarified a point which may be of some significance for successful claimants seeking to enforce a Court order against corporate defendants.
The SFO has announced that managing director and shareholder of Alta Gas Plc, Peter Brian Bradley, has been ordered to pay £1 million compensation to victims following confiscation proceedings on 26 January 2010. In 2001, Alta Gas Plc went into administrative receivership which resulted in the receivers of the company discovering a sophisticated system of false accounts that enhanced the profitability of the company.
The Court of Appeal has refused to allow a liquidator of a company that was the vehicle for a VAT fraud to rely on the defence of illegality in defending a claim for breach of duty under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986: Top Brands Ltd and others v Sharma (as former liquidator of Mama Milla Ltd) [2015] EWCA Civ 1140.
The Supreme Court has unanimously upheld a Court of Appeal decision refusing to strike out a claim by a “one-man” company in liquidation, which had been the vehicle for a VAT fraud, against its former directors and overseas suppliers alleged to have been involved in the fraud: Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited [2015] UKSC 23 (see our post on the Court of Appeal decision
In a recent decision, the High Court held that legal advice taken in relation to certain transactions was not protected by privilege, as there was prima facie evidence that the purpose of the advice was to structure the transactions in a way that avoided the client’s liability to pay local authority care charges and/or as a transaction defrauding creditors: London Borough of Brent v Kane [2014] EWHC 4564 (Ch).
The Court of Appeal has unanimously upheld an order refusing to strike out a claim by a “one-man” company in liquidation, which had been the vehicle for a VAT fraud, against its former directors and overseas suppliers alleged to have been involved in the fraud.
Key points
To attribute a director’s fraud to a company, the company must be a one-man company
A one-man company requires no innocent directors or shareholders
The Facts
Singularis Holdings Ltd (the “Company“) was set up to deal with the personal assets of Mr Al Sanea. Mr Sanea was at all the times the sole shareholder of the Company, though he was only one of a number of directors of the Company.
The Ontario Court of Appeal in Meridian Credit Union Limited v Baig1 made it clear that misinforming a receiver during the purchase of a property, even by omission, will not be tolerated. Purchasers in the context of a receivership have an obligation to ensure that the receiver is aware of all of the facts. The court also took the opportunity to remind corporate directors that they will be held personally responsible for their tortious conduct, even if that conduct was directed in a bona fide manner to the best interests of the company.