PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

di3004

tiggrae wrote: »

I never doubted they were, but from what I read Click Financial Limited was started before Click Finance Limited went into receivership - so you can't say it was a Pheonix firm - as it wasn't set up after the first went bust - the same applies to the name, if it had been set up afterwards then that would be different

Cheers.;)

So does that mean I cannot hold these 2 directors responsible ?
As they both worked for the dissolved company where one resigned and work for this actual group ?

This was known as 1clickloans before Click Finance (Dissolved company), changed to that in 2003.

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

What about this then tiggrae

PAGE 94 [FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.59 It must also be borne in mind that the restrictions on directors apply not only to acting in respect of new companies formed after another company has gone into liquidation – this is the common understanding of the term ‘phoenix company’. The restrictions apply equally to acting in respect of existing companies and businesses. This means that persons who have been directors of two companies with similar names may find themselves in breach of section 216 once one of the two companies goes into insolvent liquidation. The restrictions can, therefore, have particular ramifications for group companies, many of which will have very similar names. [/FONT][/FONT]

yes that section 216 could apply - what is it an extract from ?

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

yes that section 216 could apply - what is it an extract from ?

Digging.... Troness gave us a link last night and we found it today so would this be able to be used. I think they can apply to the courts to continue being directors but have they done this??????????

tiggrae

di3004 wrote: »

Cheers.;)

So does that mean I cannot hold these 2 directors responsible ?
As they both worked for the dissolved company where one resigned and work for this actual group ?

This was known as 1clickloans before Click Finance (Dissolved company), changed to that in 2003.

:eek: no I was only saying you can't call it a phoenix firm as Click Financial didn't rise from the ashes - it was set up prior to click finance limited's demise - but that section 216 is interesting

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

:eek: no I was only saying you can't call it a phoenix firm as Click Financial didn't rise from the ashes - it was set up prior to click finance limited's demise - but that section 216 is interesting

Pages 88-90. Appears the rules on pheonix firms may also apply even if they co-existed. The issue is that you need to prove the Director link. If this is the case then they could be held accountable for liabilities of the dissolved firm.

http://www.accaglobal.com/pubs/publi...ech-tp-cdd.pdf

I went on to read this morning (page 94) and then came up with this. God i am so into this its killing me. So have i scored some brownie point here.:D

I don't think the link works anymore though....

marshallka

bigger extract here

PAGE 93 [FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.54 There is nothing in itself illegal or improper about directors of a failed company walking away and trying again with a brand new company. There is likewise nothing illegal about a new company being formed which has a very similar name to a company which has been dissolved. Nonetheless the law sees it as being against both the public interest and commercial ethics for directors of an insolvent company to continue their business activities in circumstances where they appear to be trying to delude past and prospective clients and customers into thinking that the defunct business is continuing. [/FONT]
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.55 A new company which is formed in these circumstances is often referred to as a ‘phoenix company’ because of the false impression it creates that a company has risen intact from the flames of insolvency. [/FONT]
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.56 Special safeguards exist to prevent directors of companies that have gone out of business from becoming involved in phoenix companies. Where a director becomes involved with such a company he or she will commit a criminal offence and may also be made personally liable for the debts of that company. [/FONT]
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.57 Under section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986, certain restrictions on future activity are placed on persons who have been directors or shadow directors of companies at any time during the 12-month period leading up to the entry of those companies into insolvent liquidation. Such persons may not, within a five year period beginning on the date of entry into liquidation, be associated with any company or business that carries on its business under a ‘prohibited name’ without the leave of the court. A name is a ‘prohibited name’ if it is either the corporate name or trading name of the company that went into liquidation or a name so similar as to suggest an association with that company. Specifically, a person subject to these restrictions must not, without leave of the court: [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• be a director of any other company which is known by a prohibited name either in its corporate name [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]or business name[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned or take part in the promotion, formation, [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]management of any such company[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned in or take part in the carrying on of business [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]carried on by an unincorporated body under a prohibited name. [/FONT]
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]A person who infringes these rules commits an offence (section 216 IA 86). [/FONT]

PAGE 94 [FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.59 It must also be borne in mind that the restrictions on directors apply not only to acting in respect of new companies formed after another company has gone into liquidation – this is the common understanding of the term ‘phoenix company’. The restrictions apply equally to acting in respect of existing companies and businesses. This means that persons who have been directors of two companies with similar names may find themselves in breach of section 216 once one of the two companies goes into insolvent liquidation. The restrictions can, therefore, have particular ramifications for group companies, many of which will have very similar names. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

marshallka

Tiggrae, do you think she has got them now and if so what about a legal letter stating the laws applicable here. Could they have done this without leave of the court business and how would she find this out.

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

bigger extract here

PAGE 93 [FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.54 There is nothing in itself illegal or improper about directors of a failed company walking away and trying again with a brand new company. There is likewise nothing illegal about a new company being formed which has a very similar name to a company which has been dissolved. Nonetheless the law sees it as being against both the public interest and commercial ethics for directors of an insolvent company to continue their business activities in circumstances where they appear to be trying to delude past and prospective clients and customers into thinking that the defunct business is continuing. [/FONT]
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.55 A new company which is formed in these circumstances is often referred to as a ‘phoenix company’ because of the false impression it creates that a company has risen intact from the flames of insolvency. [/FONT]
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.56 Special safeguards exist to prevent directors of companies that have gone out of business from becoming involved in phoenix companies. Where a director becomes involved with such a company he or she will commit a criminal offence and may also be made personally liable for the debts of that company. [/FONT]
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.57 Under section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986, certain restrictions on future activity are placed on persons who have been directors or shadow directors of companies at any time during the 12-month period leading up to the entry of those companies into insolvent liquidation. Such persons may not, within a five year period beginning on the date of entry into liquidation, be associated with any company or business that carries on its business under a ‘prohibited name’ without the leave of the court. A name is a ‘prohibited name’ if it is either the corporate name or trading name of the company that went into liquidation or a name so similar as to suggest an association with that company. Specifically, a person subject to these restrictions must not, without leave of the court: [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• be a director of any other company which is known by a prohibited name either in its corporate name [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]or business name[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned or take part in the promotion, formation, [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]management of any such company[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned in or take part in the carrying on of business [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]carried on by an unincorporated body under a prohibited name. [/FONT]
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]A person who infringes these rules commits an offence (section 216 IA 86). [/FONT]

PAGE 94 [FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.59 It must also be borne in mind that the restrictions on directors apply not only to acting in respect of new companies formed after another company has gone into liquidation – this is the common understanding of the term ‘phoenix company’. The restrictions apply equally to acting in respect of existing companies and businesses. This means that persons who have been directors of two companies with similar names may find themselves in breach of section 216 once one of the two companies goes into insolvent liquidation. The restrictions can, therefore, have particular ramifications for group companies, many of which will have very similar names. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

so it's this bit section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986 - have to check who can bring action under this legislation.

Under section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986, certain restrictions on future activity are placed on persons who have been directors or shadow directors of companies at any time during the 12-month period leading up to the entry of those companies into insolvent liquidation. Such persons may not, within a five year period beginning on the date of entry into liquidation, be associated with any company or business that carries on its business under a ‘prohibited name’ without the leave of the court. A name is a ‘prohibited name’ if it is either the corporate name or trading name of the company that went into liquidation or a name so similar as to suggest an association with that company. Specifically, a person subject to these restrictions must not, without leave of the court:
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• be a director of any other company which is known by a prohibited name either in its corporate name [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]or business name[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned or take part in the promotion, formation, [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]management of any such company[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned in or take part in the carrying on of business [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]carried on by an unincorporated body under a prohibited name. [/FONT]
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]A person who infringes these rules commits an offence (section 216 IA 86). [/FONT]


[/FONT]

di3004

Dissolved 22/06/2006
Case type: Voluntary Creditors Liquidation
Wind up date:11/04/2005
Appoint Practitioner:11/04/2005

Practioners details:
Ceased to act.

Begbies & Traynor
Burley House

Director Mr T appointed as from 1/09/2001
Secretary Mr F appointed: 30/06/03
Mr F Resigned 22/02/2005
...........................................................................
Date of incorporation on above company:(dissolved company)
21/06/2001

Previous company:
1Clickloans ltd

Date of change:
8/10/03

Both Mr T and Mr F are active with other groups within Click.

Think they more or less had all their groups as from that date in 2001, and like Tiggrae says as they were already active before this one went bump, yet that information Marshallka added is very interesting.

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

so it's this bit section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986 - have to check who can bring action under this legislation.

Under section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986, certain restrictions on future activity are placed on persons who have been directors or shadow directors of companies at any time during the 12-month period leading up to the entry of those companies into insolvent liquidation. Such persons may not, within a five year period beginning on the date of entry into liquidation, be associated with any company or business that carries on its business under a ‘prohibited name’ without the leave of the court. A name is a ‘prohibited name’ if it is either the corporate name or trading name of the company that went into liquidation or a name so similar as to suggest an association with that company. Specifically, a person subject to these restrictions must not, without leave of the court:
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• be a director of any other company which is known by a prohibited name either in its corporate name [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]or business name[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned or take part in the promotion, formation, [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]management of any such company[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned in or take part in the carrying on of business [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]carried on by an unincorporated body under a prohibited name. [/FONT]
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]A person who infringes these rules commits an offence (section 216 IA 86). [/FONT]


[/FONT]

Is this any good
http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/contactus/hotlineform.htm

It sounds to me like a "CRIMINAL" thing this 216 business.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:gO3SHLPDJr4J:www.freshfields.com/publications/pdfs/2007/may28/18775.pdf+Under+section+216+of+the+Insolvency+Act+1986+phoenix&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk