The High Court identifies the test for rescinding a director’s disqualification undertaking on the basis of fraud

We live in uncertain and financially very troubling times. The coronavirus pandemic and the unprecedented measures put in place to tackle it have caused severe disruption to businesses. Big names such as Harveys, TM Lewin, Intu and the owners of Café Rouge and Bella Italia all went into administration at the beginning of the month. They will not be the last.

Interviews are frequently conducted by office-holders with individuals previously involved with an insolvent company, such as directors and officers, employees, accountants, lawyers and other third parties. Such interviews will often provide key information regarding the company’s trading and dealings and the actions of its directors and employees, thereby assisting office-holders seeking to investigate potential fraud, misfeasance and other forms of misconduct.

Third parties are often caught (innocently or not) in the cross hairs of office holders seeking information and/or documents on the asset and liability position of a company in order to fulfil their functions properly and their duties to the creditors.

The recent case of The Official Receiver v Andrew Nathaniel Skeene and Junie Conrad Omari Bowers [2020] EWHC 1252 (Ch) (“Skeene”) is a good example of the crossover between insolvency related proceedings and criminal proceedings. In this case, the High Court considered the Official Receiver’s (“OR”) ability to disclose to the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) documents which had been obtained by the OR during the course of disqualification proceedings.

It is a sad reality that the Covid-19 Pandemic is likely to lead to a spike in the number of companies being put into insolvency. This has the potential to leave parties with claims against those companies with a reduced prospect of full recovery, even if their claims are strong. As a result, claimants may look for alternative targets, including ways in which they could sue directors personally.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill received its first reading in the House of Commons on 20 May 2020, several months after Alok Sharma first announced what we expected to be the biggest changes to insolvency law in decades.

Disputes between directors often arise because of, and/or result in, disputes about company money. Directors need to be alert to how they are required to act, particularly in times of conflict. Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 imposes a broad duty on directors to promote the success of the company however the term “success” is unhelpfully uncertain, especially where the company is in difficulty and/or where the company is wound up.

It goes without saying that Insolvency Practitioners must behave honestly and with integrity in all their professional dealings. IPs must handle money and assets in a way which justifies the trust placed in them. An IP caught overcharging or misusing assets should, rightfully, expect a severe sanction after an investigation by their regulator. But the extent to which a regulator’s jurisdiction extends beyond an IP’s professional role, and into his or her private life, may come as a surprise.

There has been much mention in the press in recent times about the amount of allegedly incorrect or fraudulent claims made by employers under the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“CJRS”) (furlough scheme).