• Blog • 1834 Views
Tony Mallon of W.O.McGrory & Co, CPA Registered Accountants, Drogheda, outlines the top 7 legal remedies which are available to the courts in pursuing directors of insolvent companies. While personal responsibility of directors remains the exception when considering how and where directors’ duties are owed to creditors of a company it is useful in today’s economic climate to recall those situations in which personal liability may be imposed.
If in the course of a winding up of a company, or where a company has been shown to be insolvent but is not being wound up, or in the course of an examinership; any person found knowingly a party to the carrying on of the business of a company with intent to defraud its creditors or for any fraudulent purpose, may be guilty of fraudulent trading under the 1963 Companies Act. .
Section 297 C.A. 1963 provides for a maximum penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine not exceeding €63,487 or both. In addition, any such person may be personally responsible for all or any of the debts of the company as the Court may direct. Diverting monies payable to the company to a director or shareholder, incurring credit at a time when to the knowledge of the director there is no prospect of that credit being repayable, non-payment of monies to employees or to pension funds would all constitute fraudulent trading.
In Re Hunting Lodge Limited , there was a secret arrangement to divert half of the proceeds of the sale of the only remaining company asset to a building society account with fictitious names. The company was insolvent at the time. This single transaction was enough to constitute fraudulent trading by the directors.
Reckless trading was introduced into Irish company law as a lesser offence to fraudulent trading to capture situations where there was no actual intent to defraud. If in the course of the winding up of a company or in the course of examinership proceedings or where an insolvent company is not being wound up, it is found that any officer of the company was knowingly a party to the carrying on of the business in a reckless manner, then pursuant to Section 297A C.A. 1963, such person may be personally liable for all or any part of the debts or other liabilities of the company.
An officer of a company is knowingly a party to the carrying on of any business of the company in a reckless manner if:
– having regard to the general knowledge, skill and experience that might reasonably be expected of a person in that position he ought to have known that his actions or those of the company would cause loss to any creditor of the company, or
– he was a party to the contracting of new company debt and did not honestly believe on reasonable grounds that the company would be able to pay that/other debts when falling due.
The defendant director must have knowledge or imputed knowledge that his actions would cause loss to creditors; it is not sufficient that there was a concern or uncertainty about the ability to pay all creditors. It is a defence to show that a director has acted in an honest and responsible manner. However, failure to actively take part in the affairs of the company may not provide relief from liability since the failure to exercise proper control may amount to recklessness.
Failure to keep proper books of account
Where a company is being wound up and is insolvent and it has failed to keep proper books of accounts in accordance with Section 202 C.A. 1990, the Court may declare that any officer or former officer of the company who is in default of this obligation to keep proper books is personally liable for all or such part of the debts of the company as may be specified by the Court where the failure to keep books contributed to the insolvency. Case law shows that the Court will impose liability for such amount of the company’s debts as are directly attributable to the failure to keep proper books. The Court may also find every officer of the company who is responsible for the failure guilty of an offence and a fine of up to €12,700 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both imprisonment and fine can be imposed.
Fraudulent preference is the wrongful favouring of one creditor over others by a company which is unable to pay its debts. Any such payment is invalid. Demonstrating preference is crucial and this can be difficult for a liquidator looking to challenge the payment; for example, the payment of a creditor who has simply been very diligent about pursuing a debt will not amount to fraudulent preference.
Where a company is put into liquidation, any preference of a creditor in the prior six months may potentially be set aside as a fraudulent preference. Where the creditor is a director of the company or a person connected with a director, the liquidator can consider any payments made in the previous two years. Any repayments of debts owed to directors or shareholders by an insolvent company are likely to be scrutinised most closely by a liquidator.
A Voluntary Winding Up
On a voluntary solvent winding up of a company, the directors of a company must make a statutory declaration to the effect that the company will be able to pay its debts in full within twelve months from the commencement of the winding up. Where it is subsequently proved that the company is unable to pay its debts, the Court may, declare that any director who made the declaration of solvency is personally responsible for all or any of the company’s debts.
Aside from personal liability, the following sanctions may also be imposed on directors of insolvent companies:
If an insolvent company is wound up then, unless the Director of Corporate Enforcement (DCE) relieves the liquidator from doing so, the liquidator must apply to the High Court for an order restricting each of the directors of the company from acting as a director or secretary of company for five years (a “Section 150 Order”). The Court will make the order unless the director can satisfy the Court that he has acted honestly and responsibly in relation to the company and that there is no other reason making it just and equitable to make such an order against him. Although the Supreme Court has recently described this regime as “draconian”; and in the relevant case, lifted a restriction order that had been granted by the High Court; the statutory provisions remain unchanged.
Section 150 C.A. 1990 applies to any person who was a director of the insolvent company in question either at the date of or within 12 months prior to the commencement of its winding up. The section also applies to shadow directors. Shadow directors are persons in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of a company are accustomed to act. Case law indicates that one single act or omission can result in a restriction order being imposed.
A restricted director cannot be a director of a company in the future unless that company is capitalized to just under €63,500 if a private company and to just under €317,500 if a plc..
Section 160(1) C.A. 1990 provides for automatic disqualification for a period of five years or such other period as the Court may order, from acting as an auditor, director, other officer, receiver, liquidator or examiner, where a person, (i.e., not necessarily a director) is convicted on indictment of any indictable offence in relation to a company or involving fraud or dishonesty. Unlike a restriction order, the onus is on the liquidator or other applicant to show that the director’s conduct justifies a disqualification order.
In addition to the various provisions discussed above, which relate directly to insolvent companies, there are provisions where personal liability may arise under other statutory provisions if the relevant actions contributed to the insolvency of a company or were carried out when the company was not solvent. Loans to directors and financial assistance (”Section 60″) should all be approached with even more caution during the current economic difficulties.