header-logo header-logo

10 September 2021 / Sophia Purkis , Judith Davidge
Issue: 7947 / Categories: Features , Profession , Insolvency , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Dishonest directors: no more easy escapes?

56847
Sophia Purkis & Judith Davidge examine proposals to hold unscrupulous directors to account: do they go far enough?
  • The Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill intends to address the disparity which allows former directors of dissolved companies to escape investigation into their conduct.
  • The Bill is a step in the right direction, but it may not go far enough to deal with the actions of delinquent directors, and will not make much difference without more dedicated resources for the Insolvency Service.

The ability to dissolve companies without any formal insolvency process has long been used by the less than scrupulous to hide inappropriate behaviour. As the pandemic (hopefully) draws to an end, the government is seeking to take pre-emptive measures to tackle possible fraud arising from loans made to support companies during the pandemic and to deal with this issue.

The Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 12 May 2021.

Policymakers

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll