A recently published case has shone a new light on the well-known fact of English company law – that a company has its own legal personality and is therefore separate and distinct from its members and directors.

Thus, a company shields its members and directors from most liabilities. For directors, this protective veil is pierced in certain limited circumstances such as those set out below.

After a lawsuit filed by liquidators of a company that collapsed against the company’s former officers, directors, and independent auditors was dismissed in limine, a new Israeli Supreme Court ruling overturned that decision and allowed the liquidators to move forward with the lawsuit, alleging that lack of oversight was what led to the company’s collapse.

Subject to exceptions, a director of a company that enters into liquidation is restricted from being involved in the management of a new or existing company (SecondCo) with the same or a sufficiently similar name to that of the liquidating company (section 216 Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986)). If in breach of s.216, a director will have personal liability for all the relevant debts SecondCo incurred during the period of the breach under s.217 IA 1986.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Re Aviation 3030 Pty Ltd (in liq) [2021] FCA 1244 on section 477(2B) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) and approval of a liquidator’s proposal to enter into a settlement agreement with obligations that extend beyond three months.

Key Takeaways

On 10 October, the Dubai Court of First Instance issued a potentially ground-breaking judgment in respect of directors’ liability in the context of corporate insolvency.

In particular, in the matter of the liquidation of the public company Marka PJSC (“Marka”), the Court held the company’s board of directors and managers personally and jointly liable for the company’s outstanding debts, totalling close to AED 450 million.

Where a shareholder has redeemed his shareholding following a failed investment without objection some months prior to the initiation of a voluntary liquidation, the Court will not permit him to use the statutory deferral provisions relating to voluntary liquidations for an abusive or improper purpose. This includes using such proceedings as leverage to exert undue pressure in proposed claims against the company or directors.

This week’s TGIF looks at In the matter of Gary John Anderson in his capacity as liquidator of G & G Contractors Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2021] FCA 1185, the latest of a line of Federal Court decisions confirming the approach to be taken by liquidators of trustee companies that have ceased to be trustees as a result of going into liquidation.

Key Takeaways

The use of a company name which is the same or similar to the name of an insolvent company is fraught with complications. 

Were you at any stage involved in a company which went into liquidation or administration? Are you now involved in another business with the same or a similar name? If so, you could inadvertently have fallen foul of the criminal and civil liability under Section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Joseph Miller explains the pitfalls of this complicated and often overlooked area of insolvency law.

The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has, in its capacity as the regulator of non-banking financial companies and under the powers conferred to it pursuant to Section 45-IE (1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (“RBI Act”), superseded the Board of Directors of SIFL and SEFL.

The press release of even date from the RBI also stipulates the following:

1) The step has been taken owing to governance concerns and defaults by SIFL and SEFL in meeting their various payment obligations.

Creditors can often confuse (i) the outlawed practice of “phoenixing” with (ii) pre-pack administrations. The former is an abuse of the privilege of limited liability through (often repeatedly) liquidating a company laden with debts only to emerge shortly after under the guise of a new limited company, debt free, effectively carrying on the exact same business with the same name, premises and people.