160 likes | 171 Views
This article explores the critical period of uncertainty, known as the "Twilight Zone," for directors when a company's future hangs in the balance. It delves into liability, actions leading to potential consequences, defenses available, and orders that can be issued by the court. The importance of cooperation, potential liabilities for various parties, and best practices are also analyzed. Pros and cons of managing the twilight period are presented, along with insights into international best practices for corporate governance.
E N D
Directors in the twilight zone Neil Cooper Partner, Kroll Corporate Advisory & Restructuring Past President, INSOL International
The “Twilight Zone” • The period when the future of the company is uncertain - • Is it solvent or insolvent? • Is it profitable or loss-making? • In essence, will it survive or fail?
Introduction • considerable advances in corporate governance generally • insufficient consideration of liability in the twilight zone • two publications by INSOL International • In essence, it is the time when directors’ responsibilities change from protecting shareholders to protecting creditors
Main issues • On what does “twilight zone” depend • Actions giving rise to liability • Who may be liable • Orders available to the court • Impact on counterparties • Enforcement • Remedies • Duty to cooperate
On what does the “twilight zone” depend? • whether formal proceedings commenced? • actual or assumed knowledge of insolvency? • nature of transaction? • whether other party connected or associated? • any other factors?
Actions giving rise to liability • Breach of general & common law liabilities • Insolvency specific liabilities
Actions giving rise to liability – early stage • falsification of company's books • transactions defrauding creditors • extortionate credit transactions • fraud in anticipation of winding-up • false representations to company's creditors
Actions giving rise to liability -later stage • fraudulent (or dishonest) trading • wrongful (or negligent) trading • preferences • transactions at undervalue • incurring further credit during the twilight period
What defences are permitted? • lack of actual knowledge of insolvency • reasonable belief of solvency of company at time of/after transaction • benefit to company or group of related companies from transaction • other (e.g. technical defence no intention to prefer)
Who may be liable? • Directors • Shadow directors • De facto directors • Former directors • Lenders/financiers • Third parties dealing with directors with or without knowledge of insolvency
Orders available to the court • pay compensation to company • liability to creditors • disqualified from acting as director • imprisonment or fine • setting aside "tainted" transaction • postponing any debt owed by company to director
Duty to co-operate • who is subject to a duty to co-operate with the office holder • defence of privilege against self-incrimination? • court sanction to enforce duty by fine and/or imprisonment • statutory presumptions reversing burden of proof where connected parties concerned
Sundry issues • Time limits for actions • Appeal periods • Foreign application as well as domestic? • D & O insurance • Ability to incur further credit in twilight period
Pros and cons Pros • Stop recklessness before too late • Encourages responsible management • Incentive to hire professionals Cons • Accelerates collapse • Inhibits workouts • Weakens enterprise initiative • Increases risk to lenders & introduces uncertainty
In practice • Most directors start out honest • Poor results encourage little lies • which leads to bigger deception • and need to falsify • coupled with self-justification • and eventually little left to lose • And they can’t work out how it ended that way
International best practice • Need for positive encouragement for improved corporate governance • Financing consequences • Increased penalties for abuse • Wrongful trading test is most workable • Improved rescue laws provide viable alternatives to directors