“The four men behind the collapse of car giant MG Rover are to be banned from running companies, Business Secretary Lord Mandelson said today.”
The Independent, 11th September 2009
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) plans to extend company director bans to include not just those who were directly involved in competition law offences but those who should have done more to prevent them.”
OUT-LAW.com, 19th August 2009
Source: www.out-law.com
O’Donnell v Shanahan and another [2009] EWCA Civ 751; [2009] WLR (D) 252
“A company director had a duty to inform the company of a relevant business opportunity and could not make his own decision that the company would not be interested, and without more, appropriate the opportunity to himself.”
WLR Daily, 24th July 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Directors will be legally forced to ensure good health and safety management and gangmaster licensing will be extended to the construction industry as the centrepiece of a hard-hitting government inquiry into the high number of fatalities on Britain’s building sites published today.”
The Guardian, 8th July 2009
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Holland and another [2009] EWCA Civ 625; [2009] WLR (D) 228
“A human director of a corporate director could in certain circumstances be regarded as a de facto director of the subject company but he would not automatically be so regarded.”
WLR Daily, 3rd July 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Lord Mandelson will tell Parliament today that he has asked the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to investigate the collapse of MG Rover, the Midlands carmaker, four years ago.”
The Times, 6th July 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“Where a confiscation order was made pursuant to s 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or s 6(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 against a defendant in respect of his benefit from his criminal conduct in respect of an offence of acting in contravention of an order or undertaking disqualifying him from being a company director, that benefit was not simply to be assessed as the turnover of the relevant company, but as the value of the property obtained by the defendant himself, as determined in accordance with ordinary common law principles of entitlement and ownership.”
WLR Daily, 1st July 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Where a confiscation order was made pursuant to s 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or s 6(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 against a defendant in respect of his benefit from his criminal conduct for the offence of acting in contravention of an order or undertaking disqualifying him from being a company director, that benefit was not simply to be assessed as the turnover of the relevant company, but as the value of the property obtained by the defendant himself, as determined in accordance with ordinary common law principles of entitlement and ownership.”
WLR Daily, 30th June 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Progress Property Co Ltd v Moore and another [2009] EWCA Civ 629; [2009] WLR (D) 214
“The sale of a company’s assets at an under value by a company having control of selling and buying companies did not make the sale a dressed up unlawful distribution of its assets or ultra vires the company if the person arranging the sale honestly believed the transaction to be other than a gratuitous distribution of the company’s assets to shareholder, even though that person was the director of the selling and buying companies.”
WLR Daily, 29th June 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The Serious Fraud Office is to ask parliament to enhance its powers to fight fraudulent companies and corrupt directors, the Gazette has learned. The investigation and prosecution agency has begun consulting privately with senior lawyers and officials before it approaches parliament later in the year. Sources close to the discussions said the SFO wants powers to fine fraudulent companies and impose deferred prosecutions, as well as legislation requiring companies to report frauds as soon as they are discovered.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 7th May 2009
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“The number of directors of insolvent companies disqualified for financial crime is soaring as the recession takes hold, according to government figures.”
The Times, 4th May 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Neufeld and Another
Court of Appeal
“A person who was a majority shareholder and director of a company could also be an employee of that company under a contract of employment, even if he had total control of the company.”
The Times, 10th April 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“A company director has been fined more than £7,000 at Nottingham Crown Court for health and safety breaches after an apprentice died at his workshop.”
BBC News, 2nd March 2009
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“JJB Sports suspended its chief executive yesterday as the investigation into his lost stake continues. Chris Ronnie admitted last week that the 27.5 per cent stake he controlled in the retailer had reverted to the liquidators of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (KSF), his financial backer. Mr Ronnie said he did not know when the shares were disposed of, or at what price.”
The Times, 21st January 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“The man behind a project to build a film studio at St Agnes in Cornwall has been ordered to forfeit £100,000 at a court hearing.”
BBC News, 9th January 2009
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The court had jurisdiction under CPR r 71.2 to order the examination of a foreign director of a company which had submitted to the jurisdiction, defended a claim on the merits and failed to pay the judgment debt. A director of a corporate director of the judgment debtor was not ‘an officer of that body’ within the meaning of the rule.”
WLR Daily, 29th July 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Franbar Holdings Ltd v Patel and others [2008] EWHC 1534 (Ch); [2008] WLR (D) 220
“Where the question of ratification arose in the context of an application to continue a derivative claim, under s 261 of the Companies Act 2006, the court should ask itself whether the ratification had the effect that the claimant was being improperly prevented from bringing the claim on behalf of the company. That also applied where the connected person provisions in s 239 were not satisfied but there was still actual wrongdoer control by which there had been a diversion of assets to persons associated with the wrongdoer, albeit not connected in the sense provided by s 239(4).”
WLR Daily, 3rd July 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Oxford Legal Group Ltd v Sibbasbridge Services plc and Another
Court of Appeal
“The court could refuse to enforce the right to inspect a company’s accounts, not only where the purpose for which the inspection was sought was to injure the company, but also where the purpose was improper.”
The Times, 15th May 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“A review into business practices at defence firm BAE Systems has called for tougher anti-bribery measures.”
BBC News, 6th May 2008
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Related link: Ethical business conduct in BAE Systems (PDF)
“The court would refuse to enforce the right of a director to inspect a company’s accounts pursuant to s 222 of the Companies Act 1985 where the purpose of the proposed inspection was to injure the company or was improper.”
WLR Daily, 21st April 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024