Information about Wrongful Trading
Wrongful trading is a principle of UK insolvency law. It was introduced to enable contributions to be obtained for the benefit of creditors from those responsible for mismanagement of the insolvent company.
Under UK insolvency law [1], wrongful trading occurs when the directors of a company have continued to trade a company past the point when they:
Where, during the course of a winding-up, it appears to the liquidator that wrongful trading has occurred, the liquidator may apply to the Court for an order that any persons who were knowingly parties to the carrying on of such business are to be made liable to make such contributions to the company's assets as the court thinks proper.
Initially, there was uncertainty among banks and insolvency and restructuring professionals who assisted and advised companies facing insolvency that they may be caught by the wrongful trading provisions. This has not proved to be the case (as of July 2006), and professionals are unlikely to be covered by these provisions except in exceptional circumstances.
The facts that a director ought to have known were those which a reasonably diligent person having both the skill and experience possessed by a reasonable director, together with the skill and experience actually possessed by that individual. [2] This means that there is a two-fold test for knowledge. There is a general level of skill required for all directors under the first part of the test. Under the second, a higher standard of knowledge is required by those with specialist skills. (These are likely to be accounting or legal skills). This principle has been confirmed in a 1999 case where an executive husband had to pay £210,000 to the liquidator compared with his non-executive wife's £50,000. [3]
The normal approach to wrongful trading actions is that the liquidator will try to establish a date at which the company can be shown to be balance sheet insolvent, and then show why it was unreasonable for directors to continue to trade after this. In the UK, and contrary to many misconceptions, it is not an offence to trade a company while it is insolvent. Indeed in some situations, if the directors genuinely believe that the position will be turned around and the position of creditors will improve, it is the correct thing to do. When it becomes wrongful trading is when it should have been realised that the position of the creditors would likely deteriorate from that position onwards and the company would proceed into liquidation. Once a director realises that his or her company is insolvent, one important thing for them to do is to seek immediate professional advice from a licensed insolvency practitioner.
Many legal systems (including English law) recognise the blue sky defence; which broadly provides that, if the directors in good faith believed that the company was just about to turn the corner, and things would soon improve, then they would not normally be held liable for continuing to trade. Liability only attaches when the company has no realistic prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation.
The Court however has wide discretion, and may award just a percentage of this. It awarded 70% of the drop in net assets in Re Brian D Pierson (Contractors) Limited [1999] BCC 903. This was on the basis of the judge’s "guesstimate" that 70% of the drop in net assets was due to the actions of the directors, and 30% could be attributed to extraneous causes.
As is often the case, a company in liquidation has no assets with which to bring an action for wrongful trading. How can the liquidator bring, or fund an action? Can the liquidator sell or assign the claim to a specialist litigation company?
Because a claim for wrongful trading is a personal action brought by the liquidator, it follows that if it is unsuccessful, the liquidator is personally liable for the legal costs of the defendants. This was found to be the case following a 5 months trial in which the liquidator of Continental Assurance Company of London plc sued a number of its directors. [6] Although the costs of an action (whether successful or otherwise) can now be properly paid by the liquidator out of company assets where there are adequate funds available, the House of Lords in 2004 altered the hitherto accepted priority of costs in a liquidation, making the liquidator's costs (including the legal costs of a wrongful trading action) rank last in priority behind both preferential creditors and the sums due to debenture holders. [7]. The decisions in Continental Assurance and Leyland Daf make wrongful trading actions unattractive to liquidators.
It is now usual practice for liquidators to enter into Conditional Fee Arrangements with lawyers and have insurance against adverse costs in place in the event that he is unsuccessful. The liquidator is able to assign the action regardless of the normal rules relating to champerty and maintenance. (He is empowered by statute to sell any of the company’s property [8]. As an alternative, there are commercial litigation funding organisations which will take over the management and funding of the entire claim, and pay the liquidators a percentage of any recoveries.
The Insolvency Act 1986
The principle of wrongful trading was introduced in the Insolvency Act 1986, to complement the concept of fraudulent trading. Unlike fraudulent trading, wrongful trading needs no finding of 'intent to defraud' (which requires a high burden of proof). Wrongful trading is therefore a less serious, and more common offence than fraudulent trading.Under UK insolvency law [1], wrongful trading occurs when the directors of a company have continued to trade a company past the point when they:
- "knew, or ought to have concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation"; and
- they did not take "every step with a view to minimising the potential loss to the company’s creditors".
Where, during the course of a winding-up, it appears to the liquidator that wrongful trading has occurred, the liquidator may apply to the Court for an order that any persons who were knowingly parties to the carrying on of such business are to be made liable to make such contributions to the company's assets as the court thinks proper.
Who may be liable?
Section 214 Insolvency Act 1986 has very wide scope, since it applies not only to de jure directors (that is directors who were formally appointed and their appointment was registered with Companies House. It can apply to de facto directors (that is people who assumed the role of director of a company without being appointed), or shadow directors (that is people in accordance with whose direction the de jure directors were accustomed to act.Initially, there was uncertainty among banks and insolvency and restructuring professionals who assisted and advised companies facing insolvency that they may be caught by the wrongful trading provisions. This has not proved to be the case (as of July 2006), and professionals are unlikely to be covered by these provisions except in exceptional circumstances.
What is expected of directors?
In order to establish liability, the liquidator needs to demonstrate, using the civil burden of proof (i.e. on the balance of probabilities) that the directors continued trading the company beyond a point in time when they knew, or ought to have ascertained, that insolvent liquidation was inevitable.The facts that a director ought to have known were those which a reasonably diligent person having both the skill and experience possessed by a reasonable director, together with the skill and experience actually possessed by that individual. [2] This means that there is a two-fold test for knowledge. There is a general level of skill required for all directors under the first part of the test. Under the second, a higher standard of knowledge is required by those with specialist skills. (These are likely to be accounting or legal skills). This principle has been confirmed in a 1999 case where an executive husband had to pay £210,000 to the liquidator compared with his non-executive wife's £50,000. [3]
The normal approach to wrongful trading actions is that the liquidator will try to establish a date at which the company can be shown to be balance sheet insolvent, and then show why it was unreasonable for directors to continue to trade after this. In the UK, and contrary to many misconceptions, it is not an offence to trade a company while it is insolvent. Indeed in some situations, if the directors genuinely believe that the position will be turned around and the position of creditors will improve, it is the correct thing to do. When it becomes wrongful trading is when it should have been realised that the position of the creditors would likely deteriorate from that position onwards and the company would proceed into liquidation. Once a director realises that his or her company is insolvent, one important thing for them to do is to seek immediate professional advice from a licensed insolvency practitioner.
Many legal systems (including English law) recognise the blue sky defence; which broadly provides that, if the directors in good faith believed that the company was just about to turn the corner, and things would soon improve, then they would not normally be held liable for continuing to trade. Liability only attaches when the company has no realistic prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation.
The amount of the award
The Court has wide discretion over the contribution that it can require. Traditionally this has been compensatory, rather than punitive. The starting point for assessing the appropriate amount was the difference between the net assets of the company at the date that the directors should not have traded beyond, and the net assets at the date of liquidation.The Court however has wide discretion, and may award just a percentage of this. It awarded 70% of the drop in net assets in Re Brian D Pierson (Contractors) Limited [1999] BCC 903. This was on the basis of the judge’s "guesstimate" that 70% of the drop in net assets was due to the actions of the directors, and 30% could be attributed to extraneous causes.
Barriers to wrongful trading actions
It was thought prior to 1997 that the amount paid by a director following a wrongful trading claim was simply paid to the liquidator and it became available to swell the assets of the company generally. In most instances there would have been substantial bank borrowings secured by a debenture and personal guarantees given by the directors. Many directors chose not to fight the claims, reasoning that any amounts paid to company (hence the bank under its mortgage security) via a wrongful trading claim, simply reduced the director’s liability under their personal guarantees. It was therefore irrelevant how the directors repaid the bank. This changed with the Court of Appeal’s decision in 1998 [4] that a claim for wrongful (or fraudulent) trading, is different from a normal 'asset' of the company. In particular, it held that such claim cannot be secured by a debenture. The Court held that the fruits of a claim for wrongful trading are instead held in trust by the liquidation for the general body of unsecured creditors. It then followed that the costs of a wrongful trading action could not be drawn from the company’s assets held by the liquidator, and fell to be paid personally either by the liquidator (which he would not do), or would require a unanimous decision of unsecured creditors. [5] The position has now been clarified with the Enterprise Act 2002 changing the law to allow the costs of wrongful trading actions to be included as a cost of the liquidation. These can be met from the company’s assets.As is often the case, a company in liquidation has no assets with which to bring an action for wrongful trading. How can the liquidator bring, or fund an action? Can the liquidator sell or assign the claim to a specialist litigation company?
Because a claim for wrongful trading is a personal action brought by the liquidator, it follows that if it is unsuccessful, the liquidator is personally liable for the legal costs of the defendants. This was found to be the case following a 5 months trial in which the liquidator of Continental Assurance Company of London plc sued a number of its directors. [6] Although the costs of an action (whether successful or otherwise) can now be properly paid by the liquidator out of company assets where there are adequate funds available, the House of Lords in 2004 altered the hitherto accepted priority of costs in a liquidation, making the liquidator's costs (including the legal costs of a wrongful trading action) rank last in priority behind both preferential creditors and the sums due to debenture holders. [7]. The decisions in Continental Assurance and Leyland Daf make wrongful trading actions unattractive to liquidators.
It is now usual practice for liquidators to enter into Conditional Fee Arrangements with lawyers and have insurance against adverse costs in place in the event that he is unsuccessful. The liquidator is able to assign the action regardless of the normal rules relating to champerty and maintenance. (He is empowered by statute to sell any of the company’s property [8]. As an alternative, there are commercial litigation funding organisations which will take over the management and funding of the entire claim, and pay the liquidators a percentage of any recoveries.
Footnotes
1. ^ s214 Insolvency Act 1986
2. ^ s256(4) Insolvency Act 1986
3. ^ Re Brian D Pierson (Contractors) Ltd (1999) BCC 26
4. ^ Re Oasis Merchandise Services Limited [1998] 1 Ch 170
5. ^ Re Floor Fourteen Ltd (2000) ETC 416
6. ^ Re Continental Assurance Company of London plc [2001] BPIR 733
7. ^ Re Leyland Daf Ltd [2004] UKHL 9
8. ^ Insolvency Act 1986 Sch 4 para 6
2. ^ s256(4) Insolvency Act 1986
3. ^ Re Brian D Pierson (Contractors) Ltd (1999) BCC 26
4. ^ Re Oasis Merchandise Services Limited [1998] 1 Ch 170
5. ^ Re Floor Fourteen Ltd (2000) ETC 416
6. ^ Re Continental Assurance Company of London plc [2001] BPIR 733
7. ^ Re Leyland Daf Ltd [2004] UKHL 9
8. ^ Insolvency Act 1986 Sch 4 para 6
See also
External references
A company is a form of business organization.
..... Click the link for more information.
Types
There are various types of company that can be formed in different jurisdictions, but the most common forms of company are:- a company limited by shares.
..... Click the link for more information.
In insolvency law, fraudulent trading refers to a company which has carried on business with intent to defraud creditors.[1] Where during the course of a winding-up it appears to the liquidator that fraudulent trading has occurred, the liquidator may apply to the court
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
director is an officer (that is, someone who works for the company) charged with the conduct and management of its affairs. A director may be an inside director (a director who is also an officer or promoter or both) or an outside, or independent, director.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
A company is a form of business organization.
..... Click the link for more information.
Types
There are various types of company that can be formed in different jurisdictions, but the most common forms of company are:- a company limited by shares.
..... Click the link for more information.
In law, a liquidator is the officer appointed when a company goes into winding-up or liquidation who has responsibility for collecting in all of the assets of the company and settling all claims against the company before putting the company into dissolution.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
liquidation refers to the process by which a company (or part of a company) is brought to an end, and the assets and property of the company redistributed. Liquidation can also be referred to as winding-up or dissolution
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
De jure (in Classical Latin de iure) is an expression that means "based on law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "in fact". De jure should not be confused with the French du jour
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
De facto is a Latin expression that means "in fact" or "in practice" but not spelled out by law. It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "by law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards), that are found in the
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
In the United Kingdom an Insolvency Practitioner (usually abbreviated to IP) is a person qualified to act in connection with formal insolvency cases and to give advice on the subject.
Quite often IPs have an accountancy background.
..... Click the link for more information.
Quite often IPs have an accountancy background.
..... Click the link for more information.
An unsecured creditor is a creditor which is not a preferential creditor and which does not have the benefit of any security interests in the assets of the debtor.
In the event of the bankruptcy of the debtor, the unsecured creditors usually obtain a pari passu
..... Click the link for more information.
In the event of the bankruptcy of the debtor, the unsecured creditors usually obtain a pari passu
..... Click the link for more information.
A preferential creditor (in some jurisdictions called a preferred creditor) is a creditor who receives a preferential right to payment upon the debtor's bankruptcy under applicable insolvency laws.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
In finance, a debenture is a long-term debt instrument used by governments and large companies to obtain funds. It is similar to a bond except the securitization conditions are different.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
Conditional fee may refer to:
..... Click the link for more information.
- In the United States, a conditional fee is a reference to a future interest in real property.
- In English law, a conditional fee is the fee payable to a lawyer.
..... Click the link for more information.
Champerty is the practice of a third party participating in a lawsuit in order to share in the proceeds. Among laypersons, this is known as "buying into someone else's lawsuit.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
trading while insolvent can trigger several provisions under the Insolvency Act 1986 which may have the effect of making directors of a company personally liable to contribute to the assets of a company.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
In insolvency law, fraudulent trading refers to a company which has carried on business with intent to defraud creditors.[1] Where during the course of a winding-up it appears to the liquidator that fraudulent trading has occurred, the liquidator may apply to the court
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
Insolvency is a financial condition experienced by a person or business entity when their assets no longer exceed their liabilities, commonly referred to as 'balance-sheet' insolvency
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
liquidation refers to the process by which a company (or part of a company) is brought to an end, and the assets and property of the company redistributed. Liquidation can also be referred to as winding-up or dissolution
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia.org - the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of the wikipedia encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License.
Herod_Archelaus
