| R v McCredie | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of England and Wales |
| Citation(s) | [2000] 2 BCLC 438 |
| Keywords | |
| Insolvency, voidable transaction | |
R v McCredie [2000] 2 BCLC 438 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning voidable transactions. [1]
| R v McCredie | |
|---|---|
| | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of England and Wales |
| Citation(s) | [2000] 2 BCLC 438 |
| Keywords | |
| Insolvency, voidable transaction | |
R v McCredie [2000] 2 BCLC 438 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning voidable transactions. [1]
Mr McCredie and Mr F were convicted of holding directorships of a company trading under a prohibited name, contrary to the Insolvency Act 1986 section 216(3) and failure to deliver company books to the liquidator contrary to section 208(1)(c). McCredie was further convicted of removing company property fraudulently, contrary to section 206(2) and section 209(1)(b) and F was convicted of failing to deliver company property to the liquidator, contrary to section 208(1)(b). McCredie and F were disqualified for five and three years respectively, F was ordered to pay £3,000 to the liquidator and they were ordered to serve 180 hours and 100 hours community service respectively. McCredie and F appealed, contending that the jury had been misdirected.
The Court of Appeal held, dismissing the appeals, that company directors owed a continuing duty to produce to the liquidator all company books, property and assets and were not entitled to wait for a request from the liquidator before their production. That duty of cooperation with the liquidator further extended to the voluntary offering of information relating to the company on an ongoing basis. In the instant case, the judge had erred by failing to obtain the agreement of counsel before distributing a detailed chronology to the jury but the point had not been taken and there was no misdirection capable of affecting the safety of the convictions.
Liquidation is the process in accounting by which a company is brought to an end in Canada, United Kingdom, United States, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, and many other countries. The assets and property of the company are redistributed. Liquidation is also sometimes referred to as winding-up or dissolution, although dissolution technically refers to the last stage of liquidation. The process of liquidation also arises when customs, an authority or agency in a country responsible for collecting and safeguarding customs duties, determines the final computation or ascertainment of the duties or drawback accruing on an entry.
Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd[1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22 is a landmark UK company law case. The effect of the House of Lords' unanimous ruling was to uphold firmly the doctrine of corporate personality, as set out in the Companies Act 1862, so that creditors of an insolvent company could not sue the company's shareholders for payment of outstanding debts.
Wrongful trading is a type of civil wrong found in UK insolvency law, under Section 214 Insolvency Act 1986. It was introduced to enable contributions to be obtained for the benefit of creditors from those responsible for mismanagement of the insolvent company. Under Australian insolvency law the equivalent concept is called "insolvent trading".
An undervalue transaction is a transaction entered into by a company who subsequently goes into bankruptcy which the court orders be set aside, usually upon the application of a liquidator for the benefit of the debtor's creditors. This can occur where the transaction was seriously disadvantageous to the company and the company was insolvent or in immediate risk of becoming insolvent.
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 under such circumstances of the company and settling all claims against the company before putting the company into dissolution. Liquidator is a person officially appointed to 'liquidate' a company or firm. Their duty is to ascertain and settle the liabilities of a company or a firm. If there are any surplus, then those are distributed to the contributories.
Re D’Jan of London Ltd [1994] 1 BCLC 561 is a leading English company law case, concerning a director's duty of care and skill, whose main precedent is now codified under s 174 of the Companies Act 2006. The case was decided under the older Companies Act 1985.
United Kingdom insolvency law regulates companies in the United Kingdom which are unable to repay their debts. While UK bankruptcy law concerns the rules for natural persons, the term insolvency is generally used for companies formed under the Companies Act 2006. "Insolvency" means being unable to pay debts. Since the Cork Report of 1982, the modern policy of UK insolvency law has been to attempt to rescue a company that is in difficulty, to minimise losses and fairly distribute the burdens between the community, employees, creditors and other stakeholders that result from enterprise failure. If a company cannot be saved it is "liquidated", so that the assets are sold off to repay creditors according to their priority. The main sources of law include the Insolvency Act 1986, the Insolvency Rules 1986, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Employment Rights Act 1996 Part XII, the Insolvency Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 and case law. Numerous other Acts, statutory instruments and cases relating to labour, banking, property and conflicts of laws also shape the subject.
The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 forms part of UK company law and sets out the procedures for company directors to be disqualified in certain cases of misconduct.
Re Produce Marketing Consortium Ltd [1989] 5 BCC 569 was the first UK company law or UK insolvency law case under the wrongful trading provision of s 214 Insolvency Act 1986.
Stone & Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens[2009] UKHL 39 is a leading case relevant for UK company law and the law on fraud and ex turpi causa non oritur actio. The House of Lords decided by a majority of three to two that where the director and sole shareholder of a closely held private company deceived the auditors with fraud carried out on all creditors, subsequently the creditors of the insolvent company would be barred from suing the auditors for negligence from the shoes of the company. The Lords reasoned that where the company was only identifiable with one person, the fraud of that person would be attributable to the company, and the "company" could not rely on its own illegal fraud when bringing a claim for negligence against any auditors. It was the last case to be argued before the House of Lords.
Re Barleycorn Enterprises Ltd [1970] Ch 465 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the priority of creditors in a company winding up. It was held that fees for liquidation came in priority to preferential claims and floating charges. This was overturned by the House of Lords in Buchler v Talbot, but reinstated by Parliament through an amendment to the Insolvency Act 1986 s 176ZA.
Phillips v Brewin Dolphin Bell Lawrie[2001] UKHL 2 is a leading United Kingdom insolvency law case, concerning voidable transactions.
Morphitis v Bernasconi[2003] EWCA Civ 289 is a UK insolvency law and company law case, concerning fraudulent trading.
Re Purpoint Ltd [1991] BCLC 491 is a UK insolvency law and company law case, concerning misfeasance and wrongful trading.
Oldham v Kyrris[2003] EWCA Civ 1506 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the administration procedure when a company is unable to repay its debts.
Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd [1983] Ch 258 is a leading United Kingdom company law case relating to directors' liability. The case is the principal authority for the proposition that a company will not be able to make any claim against a director for breach of duty where the acts of the director have been ratified by the members of the company.
Australian insolvency law regulates the position of companies which are in financial distress and are unable to pay or provide for all of their debts or other obligations, and matters ancillary to and arising from financial distress. The law in this area is principally governed by the Corporations Act 2001. Under Australian law, the term insolvency is usually used with reference to companies, and bankruptcy is used in relation to individuals. Insolvency law in Australia tries to seek an equitable balance between the competing interests of debtors, creditors and the wider community when debtors are unable to meet their financial obligations. The aim of the legislative provisions is to provide:
Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited [2015] UKSC 23 is a UK company and insolvency law decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in relation to (i) the attribution of unlawful acts of a director to the company where the company is the victim of the unlawful act, and (ii) the extent to which liability for fraudulent trading under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extraterritorial effect.
Ayerst v C&K (Construction) Ltd [1976] AC 167 was a decision of the House of Lords relating to revenue law and insolvency law which confirmed that where a company goes into insolvent liquidation it ceases to be the beneficial owner of its assets, and the liquidator holds those assets on a special "statutory trust" for the company's creditors.
Allied Concrete Ltd v Meltzer was a landmark Supreme Court decision on the defence to a court order allowing a liquidator to claw back value from an insolvent transaction. The matter in contention concerned whether repaying an old debt satisfied the words "gave value" in section 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that "gave value" includes value given when a debt was initially incurred by the now insolvent debtor company.