e-Bulletins

banner34-

Archive for March, 2014

Directors Duties and the Dangers of Trading whilst Insolvent

27/03/2014 | Jon Lovitt
Directors will be familiar with the dangers under the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) of trading whilst a company is insolvent.  In such circumstances there are a number of offences that can be

Directors will be familiar with the dangers under the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) of trading whilst a company is insolvent.  In such circumstances there are a number of offences that can be committed resulting in personal liability for the director, the two most well-known being wrongful and fraudulent trading.

However, as highlighted by the recent case of Hellard & Ors (Liquidators of HLC Environment Projects Ltd) v Carvalho [2013] EWHC 2876 (Ch) directors should also be careful not to breach any ‘fiduciary or other duty in relation to the company’ under section 212 IA 1986.

Background

In this case the claimants were the liquidators of an insolvent company called HLC Environmental Projects Ltd (the “Company”) previously run by Mr Carvalho (“CV”). The liquidators brought proceedings against CV, as the Company’s principal director, for misfeasance pursuant to section 212 IA 1986 and for breach of CV’s director’s duties under the Companies Act 2006 (the “CA 2006”).

The Company began trading in 1998 when, following two public procurement processes, it was the preferred bidder on two separate projects to build Material Recycling and Energy Centres (the “Projects”). Although CV claimed that the Company was still trading in 2008, the court found that the Company had experienced several issues with the Projects and that a board meeting had taken place in 2005, at which the appointment of an administrator was discussed.  Further to this, it was held that in 2005 there was no evidence of any attempt by the Company to obtain new contracts and no serious or genuine belief that such could be obtained.

The liquidators sought relief in respect of payments made by CV through the Company between 2005 and 2008.  It was submitted that the payments made were in breach of CV’s common law duties and the court considered two of these:

1   under section 172 of the CA 2006, his duty to act in the best interests of the Company and its creditors; and

2   under section 171(b) of the CA 2006, the duty to exercise powers for the purpose for which they were conferred.

Section 172 Best Interests Test: Subjective or Objective?

The court’s examination has given us a useful set of guidelines by which to interpret the above statutory duties of directors.

The court examined the duty to act, pursuant to section 172 of the CA 2006, in the best interests of the Company.  It was stated that although the duty is generally considered subjective, being the director’s personal perspective of the situation, there were qualifications to that general rule, three of which were relevant to the claim:

1   When the duty includes a consideration of the creditors’ interests, those interests are paramount when examining a director’s exercise of discretion.

2   The subjective test is only applied when there is evidence that the director actually considered the best interests of the company. If he did not, an objective test is to be applied as follows:

whether an intelligent and honest man in the position of a director of the company concerned could, in the circumstances, have reasonably believed that the transaction was for the benefit of the company.
3   The objective test must also be applied where a material interest, such as a large creditor’s interest, is unreasonably overlooked, as the failure to take into account a material interest goes to the validity of the director’s decision-making process.

The court held that CV chose which creditors to pay (including himself and his family members) and which to leave exposed to a risk of being unpaid, which was not in itself a failing. However an intelligent and honest man could not have reasonably believed that the payments he caused to be made were for the benefit of the Company or its creditors. CV was thus ordered to pay back substantial sums to the Company.

Comment

The case helps to clarify the circumstances in which a director will be in breach of his duty to act in the best interests of his company and its creditors and whether this can be tested on an objective basis. Where there is no real evidence that the director took the best interests of the company into account, or where a large creditor is overlooked, the court won’t examine the director’s subjective understanding, but will look at how “an intelligent and honest man” would have acted.

To minimise the risks of trading whilst insolvent or prejudicing creditors, company directors should review their company accounts frequently, as well as holding regular board meetings to discuss company performance.  All decisions should be recorded, before filing with the company records.

This bulletin should not be taken as definitive legal advice. Please contact Jon Lovitt on 020 7955 0880 or jonl@rosenblatt-law.co.uk for further advice.

AIM

19/03/2014 | Nick Foss-Pedersen
It has been a very good 2013 for London’s AIM market, with the last quarter being particularly strong for new admissions and funds raised.  Rosenblatt’s corporate team was correspondingly active

It has been a very good 2013 for London’s AIM market, with the last quarter being particularly strong for new admissions and funds raised.  Rosenblatt’s corporate team was correspondingly active on AIM transactions during the end of 2013 and the start to 2014 looks set to be no less busy, having been involved in the following deals:

advising ZAI Corporate Finance Limited as Nomad on the IPO of Mosman Oil and Gas Limited.  Mosman has been formed to examine resource opportunities in overlooked and emerging resource areas.
advising Nplus1 Singer Advisory LLP as Nomad and broker on the IPO of Applied Graphene Materials plc.  Applied Graphene, originally founded as a spin-out from Durham University, has developed a scalable manufacturing process for the production of grapheme.  Graphene, touted as the “miracle material” of the 21st century, is said to be the strongest material ever measured.
advising Sanlam Securities UK Limited as Nomad and broker on the IPO of Action Hotels plc.  Action is a hotels group focussed on branded economy and midscale hotels in the Middle East and Australia.
advising Nplus1 Singer Advisory LLP as Nomad and broker on the IPO of Kalibrate Technologies plc.   Kalibrate is a provider of software-based products, data analytic tools and consulting services to the global petroleum retail industry.
advising finnCap Limited as Nomad and broker on a placing by PROACTIS Holdings plc.  PROACTIS is a global provider of “spend control” and eProcurement solutions.
advising WH Ireland Limited and WG Partners (a division of Charles Stanley & Co. Limited) on a conditional placing, subscription and open offer by Verona Pharma plc.  WH Ireland and WG Partners were joint brokers to Verona Pharma and WH Ireland is the company’s nominated adviser.  Verona Pharma is a drug development company focused on the development of high value, “first-in-class” drugs for severe, specialist-treated respiratory diseases.
advising WH Ireland Limited as Nomad and broker on a placing by Mountfield Group plc.  Mountfield specialises in the fitting-out of data centres.
This bulletin should not be taken as definitive legal advice.  Please contact Nick Foss-Pedersen on 020 7955 0880 or nickp@rosenblatt-law.co.uk for further advice.

Are repayment provisions in contracts of employment unenforceable penalties?

12/03/2014 | Andrea London
Background The increasing costs of training and recruitment and the desire by employers to avoid such costs by organically growing their employees’ skills has led to a marked increase in the use

Background

The increasing costs of training and recruitment and the desire by employers to avoid such costs by organically growing their employees’ skills has led to a marked increase in the use of repayment clauses in contracts of employment. Employers want to have the best and well-trained staff, but don’t want to be left “high and dry” if the employee leaves to join a competitor shortly after a long recruitment process or as soon as their employer-funded training is completed.  However, some repayment clauses are drafted with a heavy hand and are overly onerous upon the employee.  Not surprisingly, employees seek to circumvent burdensome repayment clauses, sometimes by alleging that they are a penalty clause and so, unenforceable.  This, in turn, potentially leads to a prior repayment becoming a claim by the employee for an unlawful deduction from wages.

The enforceability of such repayment provisions contained in contracts of employment was recently considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Cleeve Link Ltd v Bryla UKEAT/0440/12.  The principles determined in this case are not new, but Cleeve specifically dealt with the issue of whether a repayment clause of the kind often used in contracts of employment was enforceable against the employee, or not.

Facts

In Cleeve the repayment provision in question provided that if Ms Bryla terminated her contract or if she was dismissed for misconduct within the first six months’ of her employment, Cleeve (her employer) could recoup the total cost incurred in recruiting her (which included flying Ms Bryla to the UK from Poland and training costs) from any money due to be paid to her under her contract. After six months’ of employment, the amount that could be recouped would be reduced by one sixth following each completed month of employment; so that by the time she had been employed for twelve months, the repayment clause would cease to be operative.

Ms Bryla was dismissed after three months’ employment for gross misconduct at which time she was owed approx. £1,200 in unpaid wages. Cleeve relied on the repayment provision in Ms Bryla’s contract and recouped the full amount of recruitment costs against her unpaid wages. Ms Bryla consequently brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal for unlawful deduction from wages. The Employment Tribunal held that the repayment provision was a penalty clause and so, was unenforceable. Therefore the deductions made by Cleve from her wages were unlawful. On appeal to the EAT, however, it was held that the Employment Tribunal had erred in its finding; that the clause in question was a valid liquidated damages clause and not a penalty clause. It was, therefore, enforceable against Mrs Bryla.

Penalty or liquidated damages?

A liquidated damages clause is a clause in a contract which specifies a fixed or determined sum to be payable on a breach by one party to the other (innocent) party. If a liquidated damages payment constitutes a penalty, it will be unenforceable against the party in breach.

Case law has clarified that in order for a clause to be a liquidated damages provision rather than a penalty, it must be a genuine reflection of an employer’s pre-estimate of loss that it is likely to suffer if the employee breaches that provision. If an employer is unable to quantify the exact loss that would be suffered, a best guess of the likely loss would be satisfactory. In Cleeve the EAT restated that the test to be applied here is an objective test, although regard may be given to the thought processes of the parties at the time of contracting.

The key to a repayment sum being regarded as a genuine pre-estimate of loss appears to be that the sum specified must be compensatory and not ‘in terroreum’ or simply a deterrent to breaching the contract (see Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd [1915] A.C. 79; and Murray v Leisureplay [2005] EWCA Civ 963). In Cleeve, the EAT reiterated that in order for an Employment Tribunal to determine whether a repayment sum could be construed as a deterrent rather than compensatory, it would be necessary to compare the amount that would be payable on a breach under the contract with the actual loss that might be sustained if the breach occurred. If there is a significant difference between the two sums, then it is likely that the clause is indeed a deterrent and therefore a penalty which would be unenforceable against an employee.

There is also a presumption that a clause is a penalty if there is a lump sum payable by way of compensation to an employer on the occurrence of one or more of several events, some of which are serious and some relatively minor (see Elphinstone v Monkland Iron and Coal Co. Ltd (1886) 11 App Cas 332. 342).

Unlawful deductions from wages

There are very limited circumstances in which an employer can lawfully make deductions from a worker’s wages. These are set out in section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Any deduction from a worker’s wages is unlawful unless (i) the deduction is required or authorised by that statute or is contained in a relevant provision of a worker’s contract of employment or (ii) the worker has previously consented in writing to the deduction. In relation to a deduction contained in a relevant provision of a worker’s contract, although most contracts contain a standard deductions clause, reliance on such clauses should be treated with caution, as under the legislation, they are not generally sufficient to simply enable an employer to make deductions without first notifying the employee in any event and potentially requiring further specific consent.

Practical tips for employers

When including any kind of repayment provision in an employment contract, it would be advisable for an employer to consider the following points:

1.     Ensure that the amount quoted to be payable on breach and/or accordingly deducted from an employee’s wages is a genuine pre-estimate of the loss that would be suffered by the employer if the employee breaches the clause.

2.     Consider whether the repayment sum stated on a breach is comparable with the actual loss that might be suffered if the employee was in breach; a clause might be unenforceable if the two amounts are vastly different.  The key is that the clause should not attempt to deter an employee from breaching their employment contract, but to genuinely pre-estimate the level of loss to the employer if they did.

3.     Bear in mind that the clause will be construed on the basis of its construction and as at the time the contract was entered into and not at the time of any breach.

4.     If the clause attempts to recover the same amount on the occurrence of a number of events (some major, some minor) that could each give rise to a different level of damages, it would be presumed by a court to be a penalty clause and be ineffective. It would therefore be advisable to include different sums for different types of breaches.

5.     It would be beneficial for an employer to keep any calculations made in relation to the amount stated in the repayment clause as, should the matter become the subject of a claim, this would form evidence of a genuine pre-estimate of loss at the time the contract was formed.

Conclusion

As Cleeve illustrates, if a repayment provision is found to be a penalty clause then, as it will not be enforceable and monies deducted pursuant to it will entitle the employee to raise a claim for unlawful deduction from wages.

Cleeve reiterates and emphasises that when employers include repayment provisions in their employment contracts, the clauses should be carefully drafted in order to increase the likelihood that they will be enforceable. Clearly, the line between an enforceable liquidated damages clause and a clause which is a penalty and unenforceable remains a very fine one.

This bulletin should not be taken as definitive legal advice on any of the subjects covered.  If you require legal advice on any of the subjects covered or on any employment matters please contact Andrea London on 020 7955 1433 or andreal@rosenblatt-law.co.uk

  • contact

Latest news