New Rules for Imposing Personal Liability on Directors of Insolvent Companies
When a company enters into an insolvency process, a director may be made personally liable for an insolvent company’s debts on a few limited bases under the Insolvency Act 1986, the most common of which are:
1. wrongful trading: if the director knew or ought to have known that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation and he did not take every step necessary with a view to minimising the loss to creditors;
Key Points
- A dividend is a ‘transaction’ and therefore can be challenged under s 423 IA 86
- A duty to act in the best interests of creditors does not arise simply because there is a risk of insolvency which is not ‘remote’
The Facts
Shortly before insolvency, financially distressed companies often receive monies which appear "morally" to be due to third parties, such as customer deposits or monies due to be received by the company as agent on behalf of its principal. If the company then enters an insolvency process, can it keep the money, leaving the customer/principal with no more than the right to prove, as an unsecured creditor in the insolvency? Or should the money be protected by some form of trust in favour of the "morally entitled" recipient?
Facts
Mr Patel transferred Mr Mirza £620,000 to bet on shares in RBS using insider information which Mr Mirza hoped to obtain from RBS contacts. The inside information did not come through and Mr Mirza refused to return the sums to Mr Patel. Mr Patel subsequently sued Mr Mirza for recovery of the £620,000 on the
basis of unjust enrichment.
A director who breaches the obligations and duties imposed on him by his office may be liable to compensate the company for breach of duty, may incur personal liability for the company’s debts, may also face criminal or civil penalties and may be disqualified from acting as a director. The position of the company director has never been the subject of more scrutiny than it is today.
Gowling WLG's finance litigation experts bring you the latest on the cases and issues affecting the lending industry.
Uncrystallised pension pot remains protected following bankruptcy
This article was first published on the Practical Law website and in the PLC Magazine in June 2016.
Challenger banks, which are set up to compete with the larger traditional banks, have seen rapid growth in the wake of increased openness to change in the banking sector and a desire for more consumer choice. Their clever targeting of niche markets is opening up plenty of scope for growth. While this opportunity does not come without difficulties, the rewards for challenger banks that succeed can be considerable.
LITIGATION, ARBITRATION, INVESTIGATIONS AND FINANCIAL CRIME
QUARTERLY UPDATE
Welcome to the latest issue of our Quarterly Update, in which we look at some of the recent highlights and developments in banking and finance disputes and financial crime.
IN THIS ISSUE WE LOOK AT:
A salutary lesson: if you do not intend to be bound by a letter of commitment, say so clearly
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued an important ruling on March 1, 2010 in the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (Madoff Securities), adopting the trustee’s method of determining “net equity” for purposes of distributing “customer property” and Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) funds under SIPA.3
Securities Investor Protection Act
The automatic stay is one of the most fundamental bankruptcy protections. It enjoins the initiation or continuance of any action by any creditor against the debtor or the debtor’s property, including causes of action possessed by the debtor at time of the bankruptcy filing. The automatic stay offers this protection while bringing all of the debtor’s assets and creditors into the same forum, the bankruptcy court.