DOCSLIB.ORG

Fraudulent Trading As a Creditor's Remedy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fraudulent Trading As a Creditor's Remedy Fraudulent trading as a creditor’s remedy - time for a rethink? by Henry Skudra INTRODUCTION liquidated, to fully repay its creditors and so they will try and recover their losses by extracting funds from the company’s The Business Secretary’s recent succinct but important directors; almost always through the medium of an insolvency discussion paper Transparency & Trust: Enhancing the Transparency professional. To illustrate the scale of corporate insolvencies, of UK Company Ownership and Increasing Trust in UK Business raises Goode in his most recent corporate insolvency textbook several issues over which no doubt much ink will be spilt. identifies a stark rise from 12, 507 liquidations in 2007 up to One of the key aims of the proposals is to improve financial 15, 535 in 2008 and 19, 077 in 2009 as the Recession/Credit redress for creditors and, within that, the proposed radical Crunch hit home. The most recent figures from the Insolvency disruption of the Re Oasis Merchandising Services Ltd [1998] Ch Service (taken from http://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/ 170 orthodoxy whereby liquidators are presently prevented otherinformation/statistics/201308/index.htm) suggest that from selling or assigning civil actions for fraudulent or wrongful we are over the worst (with around 15, 356 liquidations for trading. Such actions are undertaken pursuant to sections 213 the last 12 months up to and including the second quarter of and 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 respectively. 2013), but we are far from being back to pre-Recession levels. This paper compares the current options creditors enjoy There are chiefly three methods by which directors are held against delinquent directors. It engages in detailed comparisons personally liable for mis- or malfeasance when a company is in and delves especially into criminal fraudulent trading since its last death throes, commonly known as the “twilight zone”: there is a startling omission in both the discussion paper • fraudulent trading under the Insolvency Act 1986, section and in academic literature generally of fraudulent trading 213 (civil liability); prosecutions under section 993 of the Companies Act 2006 • wrongful trading under the Insolvency Act 1986, section and its statuatory predecessors. This is even more surprising 214 (civil liability); given the recent case of Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Nazir and others (No 2) [2012] EWHC 2163 (Ch); [2013] 2 • fraudulent trading under the Companies Act 2006, section WLR 825 as well as post-conviction developments in recent 993 (criminal liability). time. These include the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and Each of these options must tread a fine line which is perhaps courts being compelled to consider the issue of compensation best outlined by Buckley J in Re White and Osmond (Parkstone) pursuant to the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act Ltd: 2000, section 130 (as amended by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, s 63). “What is manifestly wrong is if directors allow a company to incur credit at a time when the business is being carried on in such It concludes that criminal fraudulent trading should not circumstances that it is clear the company will never be able to satisfy its be overlooked- either in pursuing the government’s laudable creditors. However, there is nothing to say that directors who genuinely aim of improving financial redress for creditors (at paragraphs believe that the clouds will roll away and the sunshine of prosperity [11.1]-[11.17] of the above discussion paper), or as an option will shine upon them again and disperse the fog of their depression for creditors. It is hoped that this article can at least attempt to are not entitled to incur credit to help them to get over the bad time.” fill this lacuna in academic literature. (Unreported, cited at A Keay, McPherson’s Law of Company CURRENT OPTIONS FOR CREDITORS Liquidation (2nd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2009), [16.020]). When a company has been wound up, creditors (defined To fully appreciate the forthcoming discussion, it must be in Halsbury’s Laws of England as natural or legal persons with pointed out that prior to 1985 there was only one form of a pecuniary claim, whether actual or contingent, against a fraudulent trading- (both civil and criminal) in the form of company) will seek to get their money back. Very often there section 332 of the Companies Act 1948. In the Companies are insufficient remaining assets for the company, even when Act 1985 the criminal and civil provisions were split and 11 Amicus Curiae Issue 94 Summer 2013 the civil subsection was hived off to become section 213 of the Statutory Regulation of Fraudulent Trading” (M Jur thesis, the Insolvency Act 1986. Wrongful trading only arrived as a University of Durham 2012), ch 2). cause of action in the form of section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (see further: Henry Mikolaj Skudra, “An Analysis of The following table best presents the three different causes of action and allows for the simplest comparison: Option: fraudulent trading (civil) wrongful trading fraudulent trading (criminal) Legal basis: s 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 s 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 s 993 of the Companies Act 2006 Elements: (Based on McPherson’s Law of (See P Totty, G Moss and N Segal (Based on J Richardson QC (ed), Company Liquidation, [16.018]- (eds), Totty, Moss & Segal: Insolvency Archibold: Criminal Pleading, Evidence taken from Morris v Bank of India (Looseleaf, Sweet & Maxwell), and Practice 2013 (59th edn, Sweet [2004] 2 BCLC 236, 243). [B1-32]). & Maxwell 2013), [30-118]-[30- 122]). 1. the company was in liquidation; 1. that the relevant company had gone into insolvent liquidation; 2. such business has been carried on 2. that at some point before the 1. the business has been carried on with with intent to defraud creditors or for commencement of the winding up of intent to defraud creditors or for any any other fraudulent purpose; the company, that person knew or other fraudulent purpose; ought to have concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that the company would avoid going into insolvent liquidation; and 3. the defendant participated in the 3. that at the time the person reached 2. the defendant participated in the carrying of business; and his conclusion or ought to have reached carrying of business; and his conclusion about the company’s fate (and for convenience that time is called “the relevant time”) that person was a director of the company. 4. the defendant did so knowingly. BUT The foregoing is subject to 3. the defendant did so knowingly. a caveat contained in s.214(3) which provides a statutory defence in that no declaration will be made is the court is satisfied that the (ex)director took every step he ought to have taken to minimise creditors’ potential loss. Remedy(ies): Liability to make such contributions Liability to make such contributions Ten years’ imprisonment and/or a fine, (if any) to the company’s assets as the (if any) to the company’s assets as the compensation orders made court thinks proper. court thinks proper. and (if the defendant is a director, (disqualification will almost post-conviction proceedings under disqualificaion will almost inevitably follow if it has not been Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 legislation inevitably follow if it has not been done already - and wrongful trad- to recover creditors’ monies/assets. done already). ing actions can be pursued against directors only) NB - It is also worth noting that options 1 and 2 are specifi- cally not mutually exclusive by virtue of s 214(8). 12 Amicus Curiae Issue 94 Summer 2013 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE THREE “Intent to defraud”- in ss 213 and 993 only OPTIONS – A CONTRAST The phrase, “with intent to defraud” is the most problematic The following provides an analysis of the differences element of fraudulent trading of both types and has troubled between the three pieces of legislation mentioned above. From both commentators and the courts for some time (as pointed that, key differences as to the efficacy of each provision will out in A Keay, Company Directors’ Responsibilities to Creditors emerge. (Routledge-Cavendish 2007), p 122). It is important to “In the course of the winding up of a company” – in ss 213 highlight that this same test is applied to both civil and criminal and 214 only proceedings. This oddity, whereby a criminal test is also applied to a civil This phrase is not problematic per se given that part IV of wrong, was brought about by DPP v Schildkamp [1971] AC 1 the Insolvency Act 1986 clearly delineates what is meant by where it was decided that both civil and criminal wrongs were this as well as outlining the various procedures by which this contained in section 332 of the Companies Act 1948. A bare can occur. majority of the House of Lords held that the whole of section However under section 993 of the Companies Act 2006, 332 of that Act should be read together and that, “the civil section 213’s sister criminal law provision, the proscribed liabilities under subsection (1) and the criminal liability under behaviour may be penalised whilst the company is still in subsection (3) were in pari materia.” normal full legal existence and not being subjected to insolvency The great difficulty of making out this key element in the procedures (s 993(2)). context of the civil wrong has meant that section 213 is perhaps Williams condemns the fact that fraudulent trading civil much more infrequently used than it should be. Fletcher aptly provisions are only engaged when companies are being wound highlights that: “there has been a lack of consistency over the up (R C Williams, “Fraudulent Trading”, (1986) 4 Company years regarding the judicial approach to formulating the test & Securities Law Journal 14, 17).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1/1 DIRECTOR and OFFICER LIABILITY in the ZONE of INSOLVENCY: a COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS HH Rajak Summary It Is the Duty of the Dire
    HH RAJAK (SUMMARY) PER/PELJ 2008(11)1 DIRECTOR AND OFFICER LIABILITY IN THE ZONE OF INSOLVENCY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS HH Rajak* Summary It is the duty of the directors of a company to run the business of the company in the best interests of the company and its shareholders. In principle, the company, alone, is responsible for the debts incurred in the running of the company and the creditors are, in principle, precluded from looking to the directors or shareholders for payment of any shortfall arising as a result of the company's insolvency. This principle has, in a number of jurisdictions undergone statutory change such that in certain circumstances, the directors and others who were concerned with the management of the company may be made liable to contribute, personally, to meet the payment – in part or entirely – of the company's debts. This paper aims to explore this statutory jurisdiction. It also seeks to describe succinctly the process by which the shift from unlimited to limited liability trading was achieved. It will end by examining briefly a comparatively new phenomenon, namely that of a shift in the focus of the directors' duties from company and shareholders to the creditors as the company becomes insolvent and nears the stage of a formal declaration of its insolvent status – the so-called 'zone of insolvency'. * Prof Harry Rajak. Professor Emeritus, Sussex Law School, University of Sussex. 1/1 DIRECTOR AND OFFICER LIABILITY IN THE ZONE OF INSOLVENCY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ISSN 1727-3781 2008 VOLUME 11 NO 1 HH RAJAK PER/PELJ 2008(11)1 DIRECTOR AND OFFICER LIABILITY IN THE ZONE OF INSOLVENCY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS HH Rajak* 1 Introduction It is a generally accepted proposition that the duty of the directors of a company is to run the business of the company in the best interests of the company.
    [Show full text]
  • Directors' Duties and Liabilities in Financial Distress During Covid-19
    Directors’ duties and liabilities in financial distress during Covid-19 July 2020 allenovery.com Directors’ duties and liabilities in financial distress during Covid-19 A global perspective Uncertain times give rise to many questions Many directors are uncertain about their responsibilities and the liability risks The Covid-19 pandemic and the ensuing economic in these circumstances. They are facing questions such as: crisis has a significant impact, both financial and – If the company has limited financial means, is it allowed to pay critical suppliers and otherwise, on companies around the world. leave other creditors as yet unpaid? Are there personal liability risks for ‘creditor stretching’? – Can you enter into new contracts if it is increasingly uncertain that the company Boards are struggling to ensure survival in the will be able to meet its obligations? short term and preserve cash, whilst planning – Can directors be held liable as ‘shadow directors’ by influencing the policy of subsidiaries for the future, in a world full of uncertainties. in other jurisdictions? – What is the ‘tipping point’ where the board must let creditor interest take precedence over creating and preserving shareholder value? – What happens to intragroup receivables subordinated in the face of financial difficulties? – At what stage must the board consult its shareholders in case of financial distress and does it have a duty to file for insolvency protection? – Do special laws apply in the face of Covid-19 that suspend, mitigate or, to the contrary, aggravate directors’ duties and liability risks? 2 Directors’ duties and liabilities in financial distress during Covid-19 | July 2020 allenovery.com There are more jurisdictions involved than you think Guidance to navigating these risks Most directors are generally aware of their duties under the governing laws of the country We have put together an overview of the main issues facing directors in financially uncertain from which the company is run.
    [Show full text]
  • Companies Act 2006
    c i e AT 13 of 2006 COMPANIES ACT 2006 Companies Act 2006 Index c i e COMPANIES ACT 2006 Index Section Page PART I – INCORPORATION AND STATUS OF COMPANIES 11 CHAPTER 1 - INCORPORATION 11 1 Types of company ......................................................................................................... 11 2 Application to incorporate a company ...................................................................... 11 3 Incorporation of a company ........................................................................................ 12 4 Subscribers become members of the company on incorporation .......................... 12 CHAPTER 2 - MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES 12 5 Memorandum................................................................................................................ 12 6 Power to prescribe model articles .............................................................................. 13 7 Effect of memorandum and articles ........................................................................... 14 8 Amendment of memorandum and articles ............................................................... 14 9 Filing of notice of amendment of memorandum or articles ................................... 15 10 Provision of copies of memorandum and articles to members .............................. 15 CHAPTER 3 - COMPANY NAMES 15 11 Required part of company name ................................................................................ 15 12 Requirement for name approval ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • You Never Saw a Fish on the Wall with Its Mouth Shut
    IAN WINTER QC YOU NEVER SAW A FISH ON THE WALL WITH ITS MOUTH SHUT THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL IN R V K [2009] EWCA CRIM 1640 ISSUE NINE WINTER 2009 PUBLISHED BY CLOTH FAIR CHAMBERS CLOTH FAIR CHAMBERS Nicholas Purnell QC Richard Horwell QC John Kelsey-Fry QC Timothy Langdale QC Ian Winter QC Jonathan Barnard Clare Sibson Cloth Fair Chambers specialises in fraud and commercial crime, complex and organised crime, regulatory and disciplinary matters, defamation and in broader litigation areas where specialist advocacy and advisory skills are required. 2 CLOTH FAIR CHAMBERS IAN WINTER QC YOU NEVER SAW A FISH ON THE WALL WITH ITS MOUTH SHUT1 THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL IN R V K [2009] EWCA CRIM 1640 ISSUE NINE WINTER 2009 PUBLISHED BY CLOTH FAIR CHAMBERS 1 Unreliably attributed to Sally Berger but the true origin is unclear. King John, pressured by the barons and threatened with insurrection, reluctantly signs the great charter on the Thames island of Runnymede CLOTH FAIR CHAMBERS he fish on the wall has its mouth open unreliable testimony produced as a result of it. because it couldn’t resist the temptation to open it when the occasion appeared to Had paragraph 38 of Magna Carta remained the law, which justify doing so. There are few convicted could have been the case even once the use of torture had defendants who likewise could resist the been outlawed2, the question over the admissibility of the temptation to open their mouths and accused’s statement would not have been whether the Tthereby assist their prosecutors with their own words.
    [Show full text]
  • [2010] EWCA Civ
    Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCA Civ 895 Case No: A2/2009/1942 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION (COMPANIES COURT) MR NICHOLAS STRAUSS QC (SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE CHANCERY DIVISION) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 30th July 2010 Before: LORD JUSTICE WARD LORD JUSTICE WILSON and MR JUSTICE HENDERSON - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: (1) David Rubin (2) Henry Lan (Joint Receivers and Managers of The Consumers Trust) Appellants - and - (1) Eurofinance SA (2) Adrian Roman (3) Justin Roman (4) Nicholas Roman Respondents (Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of WordWave International Limited A Merrill Communications Company 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7404 1424 Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) Tom Smith (instructed by Dundas & Wilson LLP) for the appellant Marcus Staff (instructed by Brown Rudnick LLP) for the respondent Hearing dates: 27 and 28th January 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Judgment As Approved by the Court Crown copyright© See: permission to appeal and a stay of execution (at bottom) Lord Justice Ward: The issues 1. As the issues have been refined in this Court, there are now essentially two questions for our determination: (1) should foreign bankruptcy proceedings, here Chapter 11 proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, including the Adversary Proceedings, be recognised as a foreign main proceeding in accordance with the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (“the Model Law”) as set out in schedule 1 to the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (“the Regulations”) and the appointment therein of the appellants, Mr David Rubin and Mr Henry Lan, as foreign representatives within the meaning of Article 2(j) of the Model Law be similarly recognised; and (2) should the judgment or parts of the judgment of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • International Dimensions of Japanese Insolvency Law
    MONETARY AND ECONOMIC STUDIES/FEBRUARY 2001 International Dimensions of Japanese Insolvency Law Raj Bhala This paper offers an introduction and overview of the international aspects of Japanese insolvency law. There are three international dimensions to Japan’s insolvency law: jurisdiction of Japanese courts; the status of foreign claimants; and recognition and enforcement of foreign proceedings. These dimensions are characterized by a distinctly territorial approach. This inward-looking way of handling insolvency cases is incongruous with developments in the comparative and international law context. It is also at odds with broader globalization trends, some of which are evident in Japan’s economic crisis. Analogies to international trade law are useful: the post-Uruguay Round dispute resolution mechanism has insights for the problem of jurisdiction; the famous national treatment principle is a basis for critiquing the status foreign claimants have in Japanese insolvency proceedings; and trade negotiations might be a model for expanding recognition and enforcement of foreign proceedings. As a corollary, the relationship between the extant insolvency regime and Japanese banks— many of which are internationally active—is explored. Problem banks are at the heart of the economic crisis. Yet, the insolvency law regime has not been applied to failed or failing banks, partly on grounds of the systemic risk that would be triggered by a stay of creditor proceedings. The reluctance to use the regime in bank cases is open to question on a number of grounds. Similarly, the failure to develop a harmonized set of international bank bankruptcy rules to avoid BCCI-type liquidation problems is addressed, and a proposal for proceeding in this direction is offered.
    [Show full text]
  • Companies Act 2006, Section 899 Is up to Date with All Changes Known to Be in Force on Or Before 19 August 2021
    Changes to legislation: Companies Act 2006, Section 899 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 19 August 2021. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) View outstanding changes Companies Act 2006 2006 CHAPTER 46 F1 PART 26 [F1ARRANGEMENTS AND RECONSTRUCTIONS: GENERAL] Court sanction for compromise or arrangement 899 Court sanction for compromise or arrangement (1) If a majority in number representing 75% in value of the creditors or class of creditors or members or class of members (as the case may be), present and voting either in person or by proxy at the meeting summoned under section 896, agree a compromise or arrangement, the court may, on an application under this section, sanction the compromise or arrangement. [F1(1A) Subsection (1) is subject to section 899A (moratorium debts, etc).] (2) An application under this section may be made by— (a) the company, (b) any creditor or member of the company, (c) if the company is being wound up or an administration order is in force in relation it, the liquidator or administrator. [F2(c) if the company is being wound up, the liquidator, or (d) if the company is in administration, the administrator.] (3) A compromise or [F3arrangement] sanctioned by the court is binding on— (a) all creditors or the class of creditors or on the members or class of members (as the case may be), and (b) the company or, in the case of a company in the course of being wound up, the liquidator and contributories of the company.
    [Show full text]
  • Company Law I 2008 - 2009
    1 COMPANY LAW I 2008 - 2009 SEMESTER ONE - LECTURE OUTLINE I AN OVERVIEW OF OUR COMPANY LAW COURSE Semester One: . Choice of Business Organisation & Company Registration . Separate Corporate Legal Personality . Corporate Governance: Distribution of power between board of directors and shareholders’ general meeting and executives and non executive directors . Directors’ Duties . Minority Shareholder Protection Semester Two . Agency and Company Capacity: Who can bind the Company to a Contract, or make it liable in Tort or Criminal Law? . Capital – shares, loans, and markets in shares. Take-overs and Mergers of PLC’s . Insolvency and Dissolution of Companies: especially liability of directors. Choice of Business Structure Aim: o To set the context and help you to understand the key features of the main structures and issues in choosing between business structures. Reading: Davies and Gower, Chapters 1 & 2 Hicks and Goo 6th edition pp 33-77 gives an idea of the development of a business – especially the story on pages 33-40. Pages 41-77 provide the relevant documents for the company in the story. Pages 91-94 outline some of the choices for those setting up a small business. See G. Morse, Partnership Law (Blackstone) 6th Edition (2006) chapters 1 and 9 for a little more detail on partnerships. Blackett Ord Partnership, Butterworths, 2002 Chapter 1 pp 1-5; Chap 2 pp 10-34 & Chapter 10, 11, 16, 20 & 21 is good for reference or if you are particularly interested in going more deeply into partnership law. NOTE: Companies Act 2006 changes the documentation of company constitutions. It makes the Memorandum of Association a document with few details in it which is lodged when the company is registered.
    [Show full text]
  • In Re Lehman Bros International (Europe) (No 4) (Ch D)[2014] 3 WLR
    466 In re Lehman Bros International (Europe) (No 4) (Ch D)[2014] 3 WLR Chancery Division A In re Lehman Bros International (Europe) (in administration) (No 4) [2014] EWHC 704 (Ch) B 2013 Nov 12—15, 18—20; David Richards J 2014 March 14 Insolvency Ñ Administration Ñ Distribution of assets Ñ Ranking of claims which might be made against available assets of unlimited company after payment of general unsecured unsubordinated creditors Ñ Potential liability of members for liabilities of company Ñ Relationship between liability as members and claims as creditors Ñ Whether claim of subordinated debt holder ranking ahead of or C behind statutory interest Ñ Whether claim ranking ahead of or behind foreign currency conversion claims Ñ Whether foreign currency conversion claims payable out of assets Ñ Whether contractual interest provable or statutory interest payable for period of administration if immediately followed by liquidation Ñ Whether members liability to contribute in liquidation limited to funds required to pay debts and liabilities proved in liquidation Ñ Whether contributory rule applying in administration Ñ Insolvency Act 1986 (c 45) D (as amended by Companies Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments, Transitional Provisions and Savings Order 2009 (SI 2009/1941), Sch 1, para 75(3)), ss 74, 189 Ñ Insolvency Rules 1986 (SI 1986/1925) (as amended by Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2003 (SI 2003/1730), Sch 1, para 9 and Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2005 (SI 2005/1730), r 12), r 2.88(1)(7) The applicants were the joint administrators of three companies in the same E group: LBIE, the principal trading company, which was an unlimited company, and its two members, LBL and LBHI2.
    [Show full text]
  • Dear IP 48 Coverpage, December 2010
    Dear IP April 2020 – Issue No 94 Insolvency Practitioner Regulation Section 16th Floor 1 Westfield Avenue Stratford London E20 1HZ Tel: 020 7291 6771 www.gov.uk/government/organisations/insolvency- service DEAR INSOLVENCY PRACTITIONER Issue 94 – April 2020 Message from Angela Crossley, Head of Insolvency Practitioner Regulation Dear Reader Please fined enclosed the latest main issue of Dear IP. The Insolvency Service is also issuing weekly publications to our readership regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Whilst every effort is made to ensure that the information provided is accurate, the contents of Dear IP are, unless stated otherwise, the view of the Insolvency Service, and articles are not a full and authoritative statement of law Dear IP April 2020– Issue No 94 In this issue: Information/Notes page(s): Chapter 12 Gazette and Advertisement Article 10 Placing Gazette notices: a reminder Chapter 13 General Article 102 Joint statement from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), warning insolvency practitioners and FCA-authorised firms to be responsible when dealing with personal data Article 103 Insolvency Code of Ethics Chapter 15 Insolvency Rules, Regulations and Orders Article 67 An increase in the cap on the prescribed part with effect from 6 April 2020 – The Insolvency Act 1986 (Prescribed Part) (Amendment) Order 2020 Dear IP April 2020 – Issue No 94 Chapter 12 - Gazette and Advertisement 10) Placing Gazette notices: a reminder As an authorised notice placer, insolvency practitioners can place insolvency notices in The Gazette via email, post, fax, web form or XML.
    [Show full text]
  • Unfair Prejudice Petitions- Lessons to Be Learnt and Recent Development
    UNFAIR PREJUDICE PETITIONS – LESSONS TO BE LEARNT AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS When entering into a corporate relationship, few contemplate an If unavoidable, you may need to consider making them a fair acrimonious split some years down the line. Even with carefully offer for their shares. documented agreements, including exit provisions, relationships Valuation: Unfair prejudice disputes are costly, time can turn sour and expectations may not be met. Whether a majority consuming and often involve “airing dirty laundry in public”. As or a minority investor, it is important to understand the remedy of the petitioner’s goal is likely to be a share buyout, consider unfair prejudice both to ensure you can best guard against it and whether it is possible to value the shares and make an early utilise it should the need arise. offer to buy the minority’s shares. This will involve seeking early expert advice on the value of the shares. Whilst there are a number of causes of action for aggrieved shareholders, we are seeing an increased use of the statutory Resolution: A straightforward valuation of the petitioner’s protection afforded for unfair prejudice, notwithstanding it being an shares might give rise to difficulty. There may be other issues expensive and fraught process. This is often a process called upon that need to be determined first before a valuation can be to bring the relationship to an end but is equally an effective tool carried out, such as what adjustments should be made to to take control of a company or ensure that conduct is regulated reflect any breaches of duty by the majority shareholders.
    [Show full text]
  • The Companies Act 1985 and the Companies Act 2006 ______
    THE COMPANIES ACT 1985 AND THE COMPANIES ACT 2006 __________ A COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE AND NOT HAVING A SHARE CAPITAL __________ ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF CAMBRIDGE WIRELESS LIMITED ___________ PRELIMINARY 1. The regulations contained in Table A in the Schedule to the Companies (Tables A to F) Regulations 1985 as amended by the Companies (Tables A to F) (Amendment) Regulations 1985, the Companies Act 1985 (Electronic Communications) Order 2000, the Companies (Tables A to F) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 and the Companies (Tables A to F) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2007 do not apply to the company. 2. In these articles — “the Act” means the Companies Act 1985 including any statutory modification or re- enactment thereof for the time being in force and any provisions of the Companies Act 2006 for the time being in force. “the articles” means the articles of the company. "the Company" means Cambridge Wireless Limited. “clear days” in relation to the period of a notice means that period excluding the day when the notice is given or deemed to be given and the day for which it is given or on which it is to take effect. "communication" means the same as in the Electronic Communications Act 2000. "electronic communication" means the same as in the Electronic Communications Act 2000. “executed” includes any mode of execution. "guarantor" means those individuals, companies or organisations that have agreed in writing to contribute £1 towards the liabilities of the company. “office” means the registered office of the company. “secretary” means the secretary of the company or any other person appointed to perform the duties of the secretary of the company, including a joint, assistant or deputy secretary.
    [Show full text]