Former Emirati official arrested in Saudi Arabia over alleged fraud
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic presents directors of all business entities1 with a profound and unprecedented set of challenges. Now more than ever, key decision-takers in businesses appreciate that their actions will be carefully judged following the crisis. Scrutiny of their actions will come from a range of interested and affected parties including creditors, employees, trades unions, landlords, customers, regulators, insolvency practitioners and possibly even law enforcement.
The Insolvency Service describes itself as the government agency that provides public services to those affected by financial distress or failure. It's core purpose is to deliver economic confidence by supporting those in financial distress, tackling financial wrongdoing and maximising returns to creditors. In order to achieve that purpose, the Insolvency Service utilises its investigation and enforcement powers to tackle financial or other misconduct.
The Government's temporary suspension of the rules surrounding wrongful trading, to apply retrospectively from 1 March 2020 for three months, will temporarily protect directors from actions for wrongful trading (and so encourage them to continue trading in circumstances where otherwise they may have feared to).
Tamara Oppenheimer, Rebecca Loveridge and Samuel Rabinowitz, Fountain Court Chambers
This is an extract from the fourth edition of GIR's The Practitioner’s Guide to Global Investigations. The whole publication is available here.
35.1Introduction
On 11 July 2019, HMRC published a policy paper discussing measures which are aimed at those taxpayers who “unfairly seek to reduce their tax bill by misusing the insolvency of companies”. This will be achieved by making directors and other persons connected to those companies jointly and severally liable for the avoidance, evasion or “phoenixism” debts of the corporate entity.
An explanatory note and draft legislation set out the conditions that must be satisfied in order to enable an authorised HMRC officer to issue a “joint liability notice” to an individual.
The transition from a family business to a family office can be treacherous. In a family business, the family is still involved in the day-to-day operations of the business and is literally “watching the store.” In a family office, the day-to-day operation of the family business and other financial investments and endeavors of the family may be delegated to experts outside of the family. This should create an enhanced level of professionalism and provide institutional safeguards and protections for the family, but can backfire.
Bilta (UK) Ltd in liquidation) & others v Muhammad Nazir & others [30.07.12]
High Court refuses to accept that a claim by an insolvent one-man company against its director for breach of his duties would be barred by ex turpi causa.
Bilta had two directors, one of whom owned all the company’s issued shares, effectively making it a "one-man company". The directors used Bilta to perpetrate a huge VAT fraud which left the company owing £38 million to HMRC. As a result, it was placed into insolvent liquidation.
- Jackson reforms will go ahead in April 2013
The new Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, has confirmed that the Jackson reforms will come into force in April 2013, scotching rumours that the legislative process would not be completed in time. He emphasised the importance of the Court of Appeal's role in implementing the reforms, maintaining consistency and minimising satellite litigation, urging the court to "speak clearly through [its] judgments in explaining how the reforms are intended to operate". He also described the issue of costs management
Introduction
In the recent High Court decision in Bilta (UK) Ltd (In liquidation) and others v Nazir and others [2012] EWHC (Ch), the court considered the application of the legal doctrine of ‘ex turpi causa non oritur actio’ in the context of fraud.