Will I have to go to court?

Directors of a company that is in, or potentially facing, financial difficulty have a duty to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole. Failure to comply with that duty can have consequences for directors (including personal liability and disqualification if directors get it wrong).

The duty to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole begins when the company is (or in some cases is potentially or at risk of becoming) insolvent i.e. its assets are worth less than its liabilities and/or the business is unable to pay its liabilities as and when they fall due. However, just because a company is insolvent doesn’t always necessarily mean than an insolvency process is inevitable. Sometimes, the insolvency might just be caused by a temporary cashflow problem or perhaps wider problems in the business that can be overcome by making changes to the business itself.

In addition to that, the potential liability of directors ramps up even further when the company reaches the stage that the directors have concluded (or ought to have concluded) that there was no reasonable prospect of the business avoiding liquidation or administration. If the business reaches that stage, in addition to having to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole, directors can find themselves personally liable unless, from the time the directors ought to have reached that conclusion, they took every step that they ought to have done to minimise the loss to creditors. This is known as wrongful trading.

On the 25th June 2020, the government introduced new legislation – the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 – which includes measures to temporarily relax the rules around wrongful trading with the proposed changes to take effect retrospectively from the 1st March 2020. Essentially, the changes say that any court looking at a potential wrongful trading claim against a director is to assume that the director is not responsible for worsening the company’s financial position between 1st March 2020 and the 30th September 2020. Whilst the wrongful trading rules have relaxed, directors still need to proceed with caution if the business is potentially insolvent as the new Act does alter other potential pitfalls for directors, like the risk of breaching their duties or allowing the company to enter into transactions that can potentially be challenged.

The support being offered by the government is potentially a lifeline for businesses under pressure through no fault of their own, but notwithstanding the recent changes to the wrongful trading rules it is still likely to be important for the board to carefully consider whether it is appropriate to make use of the loans, grants and tax forbearance that are on offer.

Exactly what the board should consider will vary from business to business and getting it right can sometimes involve balancing several different (and at times conflicting) priorities, challenges and concerns.

A quicker and more cost-effective option may be the involvement of the police given their recent allocation of emergency powers to disperse, fine or even arrest persons who flout these rules. Nevertheless, it appears that the Court is willing to support housing providers in their efforts to tackle anti-social behaviour during this time.

Furlough means temporary leave of absence. There is nothing to stop an employer seeking to agree a temporary leave of absence – with or without pay – with its workforce.

This could not be forced on an employee without significant risk. Without agreement, this would need fair selection and consultation – more on that later.

Many charities have money that are considered restricted funds which are given to the charity or raised for a specific purpose.  The Charity Commission gives guidance on this, please see the link below. Depending on the circumstances in which these monies have been given to a charity or raised you may or may not be able to use them.

Monies raised in an appeal or specific fund raising campaign are unlikely to be available as it is likely to be impossible to get the permission of the donor to change the use.  If however you have had monies donated for a specific purpose and you can identify the donor you can use these funds for general overheads and to pay wages etc. if you receive the donor’s specific permission to do so.

A pension attachment order can be used on divorce, dissolution of a civil partnership or as part of a judicial separation agreement. A pension attachment order requires payment by the pension company of some or all of a policyholder’s pension benefits to the ex-spouse or ex-civil partner, when the pension becomes payable to the policyholder. These benefits can be in the form of periodical payments (numerous payments over time and at specified intervals) or a lump sum (a single payment). If a pension attachment order is in existence and the pension concerned is transferred from one provider to another, the attachment order will be transferred to the new fund.

In practice, pension attachment orders are rarely used, as courts prefer to use pension sharing orders. Instead of paying the ex-spouse or ex-civil partner out of the policyholder’s fund, pension sharing orders divide rights under a pension scheme so that each spouse has their own independent rights under that scheme or under two separate schemes. For further details, read What is a Pension Sharing Order?