<-- Back to proposed bills

Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill - Sitting 1

06 July 2021

Proposing MP
Neath
Type
Public Bill Committee

At a Glance

Issue Summary

The statement discusses the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill and its aim to address misuse of company dissolution procedures. The statement discusses instances of company directors dissolving companies to avoid paying back government loans given as coronavirus support and the adequacy of resources for the Insolvency Service to handle such cases. Christina Rees is thanking Mr Pegge for his evidence on the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill. The statement discusses the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill, focusing on its potential impact on restoring confidence in the creditor community and addressing concerns about directors avoiding debts through company dissolution. The statement discusses the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill, focusing on retrospective provisions, the adequacy of three-year time limits for investigations, and the potential impact on creditors and deterrence against fraudulent practices. The statement discusses the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill and its provisions aimed at enhancing the ability to investigate and disqualify unfit directors of dissolved companies. Dr Tribe discusses concerns about limited liability company abuse, phoenixing, and directors' disqualification in the context of the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill. Dr Tribe discusses the potential impact of new powers for dealing with directors of dissolved companies who have behaved unethically and the importance of proper funding for the Insolvency Service to address these issues. Dr Tribe discusses the differences between director disqualification, compensation orders, and criminal prosecution in addressing fraudulent behavior related to the bounce back loan scheme. The statement discusses the retrospective nature of closing the dissolution loophole for preventing abuse of the bounce back loan scheme and its impact on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The statement addresses the process of restoring dissolved companies to the register and the subsequent insolvency procedures, focusing on reducing bureaucratic layers for more efficient enforcement.

Action Requested

There are no specific actions requested; the statement provides information on the scale of potential misuse of company dissolution processes, estimating that only about 1% of cases show misconduct or abuse but noting a significant risk if such instances rise in number. The speaker supports closing the loophole to prevent abuse and protect creditors.

Key Facts

  • Insolvency Service estimates misconduct or misuse in only 1% of company dissolutions annually.
  • Around 500,000 companies are dissolved each year in the UK.
  • Even at 1%, this could amount to approximately 5,000 cases with a risk to creditors up to £1 billion.
  • The average loan amount for a dissolved company might be around £200,000.
  • The bounce back loan fraud collaboration group involves attendees from the Cabinet Office; CIFAS; Treasury; BEIS; and NATIS.
  • There could be around 2,000 cases of companies being dissolved to avoid paying back government loans.
  • The Insolvency Service has been involved in disqualification of directors in about 1,000 cases over the last year.
  • Christina Rees thanks Mr Pegge for his evidence.
  • The Committee adjourns briefly as the next witness is not yet ready.
  • The Chartered Institute of Credit Management contributed to a 2018 consultation supporting director disqualification measures.
  • Up to 2,500 companies that received COVID-related loans may have been dissolved over the last year.
  • The Bill aims to give the Insolvency Service powers to investigate cases where directors leave behind unpaid debts, acting as a deterrent and potentially restoring confidence in the creditor community.
  • Current disqualification provisions have been effective since 1986.
  • The three-year time limit for investigations into directors’ conduct has been in place for 35 years.
  • Insolvency practitioners are required to report on director conduct in insolvent situations.
  • Dr John Tribe is a senior lecturer in law at the University of Liverpool.
  • The Bill extends public protection provisions under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to dissolved companies.
  • The measures aim to maintain public confidence and protect against unfit directors.
  • Dr Tribe is a senior lecturer in law at the University of Liverpool with expertise in insolvency law.
  • Phoenixing refers to the abuse of limited liability companies, causing damage to creditors.
  • There were approximately half a million company dissolutions per year over the past six years.
  • The Public Accounts Committee projected a loss of between £16 billion and £27 billion from bounce back loans in late June 2021.
  • The Insolvency Service prioritises egregious cases or those that send a public protection signal.
  • The lack of efficacy between 1928 and 1982 was attributed to insufficient resourcing.
  • Between £16 billion and £27 billion have potentially been lost due to director misconduct.
  • There were approximately half a million dissolutions per year, with about 5,000 potentially problematic cases.
  • The Insolvency Service currently deals with around 1,200 disqualification cases annually.
  • The Bill deals with amendments to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.
  • Dr Tribe mentions a case of Creasey v. Breachwood Motors Ltd regarding group reconstruction and employment claims.
  • The three-year time limit for enforcement powers is discussed.
  • £16 billion to £27 billion projected shortfall from bounce back loan abuse.
  • A disqualification order for 12 years was issued against Mr Khan and his Birmingham-based business due to fraudulent activity involving forged documents for a £50,000 loan.
  • Glasgow-based companies have been wound up in the public interest because of bounce back loan abuse.
  • The Insolvency Service conducted 33 restorations in 2019 before the bounce back loan issue and coronavirus pandemic.
  • Each restoration involves court fees, process fees at Companies House, adding extra procedural layers.
  • The legislation aims to clear out this extra layer of bureaucracy for a quicker public protection mechanism.
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy