Transcript Directors in the twilight zone Neil Cooper Partner, Kroll Corporate Advisory & Restructuring Past President, INSOL International 06/11/2015

Directors in
the twilight zone
Neil Cooper
Partner, Kroll Corporate Advisory &
Restructuring
Past President, INSOL International
06/11/2015
1
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?


06/11/2015
2
Introduction




06/11/2015
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
3
Main issues








06/11/2015
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
4
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?
06/11/2015
5
Actions giving rise to liability
06/11/2015

Breach of general & common law
liabilities

Insolvency specific liabilities
6
Actions giving rise to liability – early stage





06/11/2015
falsification of company's books
transactions defrauding creditors
extortionate credit transactions
fraud in anticipation of winding-up
false representations to company's
creditors – overtly or covertly
7
Actions giving rise to liability -later stage





06/11/2015
fraudulent (or dishonest) trading
wrongful (or negligent) trading
preferences
transactions at undervalue
incurring further credit during the
twilight period
8
What defences are permitted?





06/11/2015
lack of actual knowledge of insolvency
reasonable belief of solvency of company
after transaction
benefit to company or group of related
companies from transaction
Acting on professional advice
other (e.g. technical defence no intention to
prefer)
9
Who may be liable?






06/11/2015
Directors
Shadow directors
De facto directors
Former directors
Lenders/financiers
Third parties dealing with directors
with or without knowledge of
insolvency
10
Orders available to the court






06/11/2015
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
11
Duty to co-operate




06/11/2015
who has duty to co-operate with the office
holder?
defence of privilege against selfincrimination?
court sanction to enforce duty by fine and/or
imprisonment
statutory presumptions reversing burden of
proof where connected parties concerned
12
Sundry issues





06/11/2015
Time limits for actions
Appeal periods
Foreign application as well as
domestic?
D & O insurance
Ability to incur further credit in
twilight period as part of
reorganisation
13
Pros and cons
06/11/2015
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
14
In practice







06/11/2015
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
15
International best practice





06/11/2015
Need for positive encouragement for
improved corporate governance
Financing consequences
Increased penalties for abuse
Wrongful trading test is most workable
– the stick
Improved rescue laws provide viable
alternatives to directors – the carrot
16