‘The current and former directors of Hong Kong company Nu Tek have been sentenced to 18 and 12 months’ imprisonment for breaching a worldwide freezing order.’
OUT-LAW.com, 28th June 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Cold call kings behind millions of nuisance calls are getting away with it because the Government has refused to hold them personally liable, the departing Information Commissioner has told The Telegraph. Christopher Graham, in his final interview before stepping down, said he had repeatedly pressed ministers to give him the power to pursue the directors of cold-calling companies – but his pleas had been ignored.’
Daily Telegraph, 18th June 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The shareholder claimed to have purchased a 66·6% share in the company, a United Kingdom holding company of a group operating in South East Asia. Following a substantial fall in the share price the shareholder requested that the directors call a general meeting of the company, which, by section 303 of the Companies Act 2006, they were required to do if they received requests from members representing at least 5% of the paid-up capital of the company. The directors refused to call the general meeting requested, contending that the shareholder’s shares were in fact not paid up. The shareholder served a notice pursuant to section 305 of the 2006 Act, by which a shareholder was entitled to call a meeting if the directors had wrongfully refused to do so. The company subsequently informed the shareholder that it had issued further shares to a Malaysian company reducing his shareholding to 1·17%. The shareholder commenced two actions, one by a petition for a declaration that the notice served by him under section 305 of the 2006 Act was valid and effective and a direction that the general meeting be held, and the other, by a Part 8 claim form for an order rectifying the company’s register of members to delete the additional share issue for want of authorisation.’
WLR Daily, 17th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Most insolvency practitioners and lawyers believe the end of the exemption for insolvency litigation from the abolition of recoverable success fees and insurance premiums in conditional fee cases will lead to “unscrupulous or illegal behaviour” by company directors, a survey has found.’
Litigation Futures, 3rd June 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.co.uk
‘The planned introduction of a new corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent fraud, money laundering and other economic crimes would have an “even bigger impact on businesses than the introduction of the Bribery Act”, a corporate crime expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 13th May 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Applications for wrongful trading under s 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 are notoriously difficult. In Brooks v Armstrong [2015] EWHC 2289 (Ch), Registrar Jones ordered the former directors of Robin Hood Centre plc (the “Directors”) (the “Company”) to make a contribution to the Company’s assets under s 214. But the relatively small award serves as a cautionary reminder of the risks of s 214 applications for liquidators and directors alike.’
New Square Chambers, 1st December 2015
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘Directors of a publicly-listed gas exploration company were not entitled to impose voting restrictions on certain shareholders which had failed to comply with statutory disclosure notices, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th December 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘City Link did not breach laws requiring them to notify the government that they were “proposing to dismiss” thousands of employees who were made redundant when the business became insolvent last year, a court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 16th November 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Abolishing the exemption from LASPO for insolvency cases would create a “windfall” for third-party funders, insolvency trade body R3 has argued.’
Litigation Futures, 29th October 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Chris Milsom considers the recent EAT Judgment which decides that a limited company can sue for discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 .’
Cloisters, 29th September 2015
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘Employers who fail to pay the new “national living wage” face increased fines under a crackdown on non-compliance announced by David Cameron.’
The Guardian, 1st September 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘It is up to the directors of an insolvent company to prove that they took “every step” to minimise the potential loss to creditors as soon as they knew that the company could not reasonably avoid liquidation, the High Court has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th August 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Blacklisted workers have intensified their campaign to uncover the extent of secret police surveillance operations against them.’
The Guardian, 28th May 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The nightmare scenario. Your co-directors leave and set up a competing business. They lure employees to join them and use your systems and processes to create a copycat product or service. What can you do?’
Technology Law Update, 27th May 2015
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
Jetivia SA and another (Appellants) v Bilta (UK) Limited and others (Respondents) [2015] UKSC 23 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 22nd April 2015
‘The defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio is not available to company directors in a claim by the company for conspiracy to defraud the company because the directors’ conduct cannot be attributed to the company in the context of its claim for a breach of the directors’ duties. Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extra territorial effect and can be invoked against the directors.’
WLR Daily, 22nd April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Can a company which has been fined for anticompetitive conduct seek to recover the fine from the directors and employees responsible by suing them for damages?’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 29th April 2015
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
In re Melodious Corpn; Pui-Kwan v Kam-Ho and others [2015] EWHC 621 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 162
‘Rule 7.55 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 had no application in circumstances where a meeting of the board of directors of the company purporting to place the company into administration out of court pursuant to paragraph 22(2) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 was inquorate and accordingly the resolution to appoint an administrator was invalid.’
WLR Daily, 10th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024