Why directors should be paying attention
Director disqualification has always been serious, but the enforcement landscape is changing.
Around 5 years ago, many directors still assumed that if a company was dissolved, inactive, or no longer trading, the risk of later investigation was lower.
That is no longer a safe assumption.
The Insolvency Service has already been given wider powers in recent years, particularly in relation to dissolved companies. The Government is now consulting on further changes to the corporate civil enforcement regime.
For directors, business owners, investors and those involved in multiple companies, this matters.
The question is no longer simply whether a company has failed.
The question is whether the director’s conduct can be investigated, challenged and used as the basis for disqualification, compensation or other enforcement action.
What the position looked like around 5 years ago
Around 5 years ago, the director disqualification regime was mainly focused on misconduct connected to insolvent companies.
Where a company entered liquidation, administration or another insolvency process, the director’s conduct would usually be reviewed. Liquidators and office holders would submit conduct reports and the Insolvency Service could consider whether disqualification action was appropriate.
However, where a company was simply dissolved without entering a formal insolvency process, the position was more limited.
That distinction mattered.
Some directors used dissolution as a way of closing down a company without placing it into liquidation. In some cases, there may have been unpaid creditors, tax liabilities, Bounce Back Loans or other unresolved issues.
Before the law changed, there was less scope for the Insolvency Service to pursue director disqualification in relation to dissolved companies in the same way as insolvent companies.
That created a concern that some directors could avoid scrutiny by dissolving the company rather than allowing it to enter a formal insolvency process.
What changed with dissolved companies
The Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021 changed the position.
It gave the Insolvency Service power to investigate and seek the disqualification of former directors of dissolved companies.
This was a significant development.
It meant that dissolution was no longer a simple way of avoiding director conduct scrutiny.
This is particularly important where a company has been dissolved while owing money, where Covid related financial support was obtained, or where creditors were left without a formal insolvency process.
The message is clear.
A company being dissolved does not necessarily mean the end of the matter.
What the position looks like now
The current enforcement environment is wider than it was several years ago.
The Insolvency Service can now take action in relation to:
- director disqualification following liquidation or administration;
- director disqualification in relation to dissolved companies;
- conduct involving Bounce Back Loans and other Covid related financial support;
- compensation orders and compensation undertakings;
- acting while disqualified;
- phoenix activity and repeat misconduct;
- public interest winding up cases;
- directors involved in multiple companies or connected business structures.
This does not mean that every failed company will lead to disqualification.
It does mean that directors should not assume that closing, dissolving or walking away from a company removes the risk of investigation.
The Insolvency Service is increasingly focused on conduct, patterns of behaviour and whether creditors or the public have suffered loss.
Why Bounce Back Loans changed the temperature
Bounce Back Loans changed the enforcement landscape.
Many directors applied for emergency funding at speed during the pandemic. Some applications were genuine and the funds were properly used.
Others have since raised serious questions.
Common issues include:
- inflated turnover figures;
- more than 1 Bounce Back Loan for the same company;
- multiple loans across connected companies;
- companies that were not trading as claimed;
- funds used personally by directors;
- money moved between connected companies;
- companies dissolved after receiving loans;
- poor or missing records explaining how the funds were used.
The fact that a loan was approved by a bank does not necessarily protect a director if the application was inaccurate or the funds were misused.
This is one of the reasons dissolved company powers became so important.
If a company received a Bounce Back Loan and was then dissolved, the Insolvency Service may still investigate the conduct of the former directors.
What is being considered now
The Government is currently consulting on corporate civil enforcement reforms.
The consultation is looking at whether the civil enforcement regime should be modernised, including the tools available to deal with director misconduct and companies operating against the public interest.
It is important to be clear about this.
These are proposals at this stage. They are not all current law.
However, the consultation shows that the Government is actively reviewing whether the existing system is strong enough, efficient enough and flexible enough to deal with modern misconduct.
The consultation includes proposals relating to director disqualification, restrictions for less serious misconduct, information gathering powers, public interest winding up cases and possible changes to who makes certain enforcement decisions.
For directors, the direction of travel matters.
The system may become more streamlined, more administrative in some areas and more focused on early enforcement.
Could the Insolvency Service get sharper teeth?
The simple answer is that it may do.
The Government is consulting on proposals that could strengthen the Insolvency Service’s civil enforcement powers.
Those proposals include possible changes to the way director disqualification cases are dealt with, including whether some decisions should be made by the Secretary of State rather than the Court, subject to safeguards and appeal rights.
The consultation also considers whether a new restrictions regime should be introduced for less serious misconduct.
That could create a wider range of outcomes between no action and full director disqualification.
Again, these are proposals.
They may change before anything becomes law.
But directors should not ignore the direction of travel.
The enforcement regime is not moving towards being softer.
Why this matters for high value directors and business owners
For directors with multiple companies, property interests, regulated roles, investor relationships, family businesses or a public profile, disqualification can have consequences far beyond 1 failed company.
It may affect:
- the ability to act as a director;
- future investment opportunities;
- banking relationships;
- professional reputation;
- regulated roles;
- investor confidence;
- family business structures;
- personal credibility;
- the ability to be involved in future business ventures.
For high value directors, the reputational damage may be as serious as the legal restriction itself.
A disqualification undertaking or order can be public, searchable and damaging.
That is why these issues need to be dealt with strategically and early.
The risk of ignoring correspondence
One of the biggest mistakes directors make is ignoring correspondence from the Insolvency Service, a liquidator, the Official Receiver or another investigating party.
A director may think that if the company has already gone, there is nothing more to say.
That is rarely a safe approach.
A director may be asked about:
- why the company failed;
- how creditors were treated;
- whether tax was paid;
- how company funds were used;
- whether Bounce Back Loans were properly obtained;
- whether records were kept;
- whether assets were transferred;
- whether connected parties benefited;
- whether a new company is carrying on the same business;
- whether the director has continued to act behind the scenes.
A poor response, no response, or an unsupported explanation can make the position worse.
Then and now
The difference between then and now is important.
Around 5 years ago, many directors were focused on traditional liquidation based disqualification risk.
Now, the risk is wider.
Dissolved companies can be investigated.
Bounce Back Loan conduct is still being pursued.
Compensation orders and compensation undertakings are part of the enforcement landscape.
There is greater scrutiny of repeat behaviour, phoenix activity and connected company structures.
The Government is consulting on further reform.
The Insolvency Service is more visible, more focused and may become more powerful if further reforms are introduced.
That is why directors should not assume that historic conduct is safely behind them.
My guidance
Director disqualification is not standing still.
The system has already changed, particularly in relation to dissolved companies, and further reform is now under consideration.
For directors, the safest approach is to assume that conduct can be reviewed even after a company has closed, dissolved or entered liquidation.
If there are issues involving Bounce Back Loans, unpaid tax, dissolved companies, connected businesses, phoenix arrangements, missing records or funds transferred to directors or connected parties, early advice is essential.
Do not wait until the Insolvency Service has already formed a view.
Do not give rushed answers.
Do not assume that because something happened several years ago, it will not be investigated.
The sharper the enforcement regime becomes, the more important it is for directors to understand their position before responding.
Concerned About Your Position?
If you are concerned about your personal position, your company, or any formal correspondence you have received, it is important to take advice before responding or taking further steps.
To book a confidential discussion, please visit:
Disclaimer
This article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. Each situation will depend on its own facts and specific circumstances, and you should not rely on the above without taking appropriate professional advice.
Navigate Business Recovery Limited
Office: 0330 236 9937
Mobile: 07961 116321
Email: vee@navigatebr.com