The end of the Spongebob Plan? Dissolutions being investigated

RedundancyClaim

Free Member
Sep 1, 2016
43
8
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...c?shareToken=3b2987339578c8b99bde20340610f377

Ban for directors who abuse insolvency

James Hurley, Enterprise Editor
Thursday May 13 2021, 12.01am, The Times

A loophole that allowed rogue directors to escape scrutiny by dissolving their companies is to be closed, the government has said.

The Insolvency Service will be given powers to investigate directors of companies that have been quietly struck from the corporate register amid concerns over fraudulent evasion of liabilities linked to emergency Covid-19 loans.

The service currently only has powers to investigate directors of live companies or those entering a form of insolvency. Directors can face sanctions including a ban of up to 15 years where wrongdoing or malpractice is found.

Dissolution via strike-off or voluntary liquidation is only supposed to be used without a prior insolvency and only when a company no longer has any assets, has not been trading and where creditors have been informed.

However, the dissolution process is sometimes abused by directors who simply wind up their companies without putting them through an insolvency in order to drop liabilities and escape investigation.

The government has said it will act against the misuse of the system by allowing directors of dissolved companies to be investigated. The measures can be applied retrospectively, allowing the Insolvency Service to tackle directors who have inappropriately wound up companies that have benefited from emergency state financial support such as bounce-back loans.

The move is also intended to help to prevent directors of dissolved companies from setting up a near-identical business after the dissolution, often leaving customers and other creditors, such as suppliers or HMRC, unpaid.

However, there are likely to be questions over whether the Insolvency Service has sufficient resources to enforce the new rules.

Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, said a few unscrupulous directors could not be allowed to “abuse the support” put in place.

“Rogue directors who exploited the legal loophole that allowed them to deliberately run their companies into the ground to avoid paying their staff, suppliers, taxes or taxpayer-backed loans will have to watch their backs, because this new legislation is closing that door firmly and permanently,” he said.

“These new powers not only strengthen our ability to investigate but, if we find evidence of misconduct, we can seek to disqualify those rogue directors and remove them from the corporate arena for significant periods.”
 

ChrisCallaghan

Free Member
  • Business Listing
    Apr 10, 2018
    1,196
    2
    856
    Sheffield
    As discussed in @Lisa Thomas post this is welcome news, and will hopefully end the practice of rogue directors getting away with dissolving their companies to avoid investigation.

    However I don't feel this is necessary the end of the SpongeBob plan. One of the core points of the SpongeBob method is to advise company directors with no funds or assets left in the company's name to fund a voluntary liquidation. In these circumstances, if a director cannot pay an IP for a voluntary liquidation, then the SpongeBob method is still the only way forward. The recent news just means that the directors may face the same investigation they would have faced if the company had been liquidated.
     
    Upvote 0
    Sep 18, 2013
    6,699
    3
    1,553
    Colchester
    Seems the wrong way round to me - let the company be struck off then somebody from The Insolvency makes the decision to Investigate?

    I thought they were not going to let company's be struck off when there is BBL in place as the Banks needed to claim under the Government guarantee.

    So looks like no formal Insolvency process is required to claim under guarantee?
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Lisa Thomas
    Upvote 0

    ChrisCallaghan

    Free Member
  • Business Listing
    Apr 10, 2018
    1,196
    2
    856
    Sheffield
    So looks like no formal Insolvency process is required to claim under guarantee?

    The powers will be retroactive when it passes into law. I think this will be to allow investigations into those already dissolved or any more that slip through the net. I understand from others though that Banks are being advised to NOT to let companies be dissolved where there is a BBLS or CBILS.

    This is also not just for companies dissolved with BBLS or CBILS.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Lisa Thomas
    Upvote 0

    Spongebob

    Free Member
    Dec 9, 2008
    2,271
    1,169
    Bikini Bottom
    This makes no difference to the Spongebob Plan.

    My advice has always been to invite creditors to wind up the company, leading to a compulsory liquidation - usually conducted by the Official Receiver. That advice remains exactly the same.

    Applying to Companies House for a dissolution was always a subsequent step should no creditor take up the invitation.

    in recent years a much simpler way of dissolving a company has been simply not submitting the annual Confirmation Statement. Within a few months the company has been struck off. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this does not now work as well; the advent of the Bounce Back Loan seems to have cut off that particular avenue.

    At the core of the Spongebob Plan is the letter to creditors advising them that the company is insolvent, has insufficient assets to fund a voluntary liquidation, and that the creditor is invited to initiate winding up proceedings.

    Nothing has changed.

    Any insolvent company with a Bounce Back Loan outstanding should expect an investigation by the Official Receiver. The bank will have to wind the company up in order to make a claim on the government guarantee.

    Directors of such companies need to have a good explanation of where the BBL went, and why the company is now insolvent despite receiving it. For most very small companies the explanation will be that the money was spent on overheads and directors’ salaries while turnover fell off a cliff.

    This new legislation has no impact on directors genuinely finding their company to be insolvent and unable to continue trading. I suspect there will be hundreds of thousands of such cases. I wonder how the Insolvency Service is going to cope.

    Probably by minimal investigation concentrating only on obvious cases of abuse or fraud. A jobbing tradesman or consultant with a BBL of £10k is unlikely to attract a lot of attention.
     
    Last edited:
    Upvote 0

    zeus70

    Free Member
    Jul 16, 2021
    25
    1
    Thanks Spongebob. I have indeed followed the plan, got the company dissolved and the bank has now claimed on the government guarantee.

    the banks need to get a debt collection service involved, but you just tell them the truth, i,e company has no funds and you welcome the official receiver to investigate. always send all the letter to all the creditors.

    Bank have to allow the company to be dissolved before they can claim on the government guarantee.
     
    Upvote 0
    Sep 18, 2013
    6,699
    3
    1,553
    Colchester
    As previously mentioned the dissolution of the company has no bearing on whether you (the Director) will be selected for review/investigation by the Insolvency Service (IS) for use of BBL. The IS now have retrospective powers so it can be some months, even years, down the line before this all unwinds.

    If you have used the BBL funds for its intended purpose you have nothing to worry about. If used for own personal gain then that's a different matter that will be looked at. Of course, there is also the issue of disclosing the personal gain on your tax return if it did not pass through the payroll system.
     
    Upvote 0

    zeus70

    Free Member
    Jul 16, 2021
    25
    1
    people reading this forum should take listen to all points carefully:

    1. file ds01 only if you have stopped trading and cannot afford to appoint an insolvency practitioner
    2. follow the spongebob plan and ensure creditors get informed of your action so they can object or appoint official reciever
    3. stick to your guns, when debt is passed onto the debt collector

    eventually ltd will be closed down. for those with bounce back loans, ensure BBL funds have been used for its intended purpose - make sure you right these down if anyone wants to know. for most people this will be expenses and salary....not to pay off any other loan etc (read up if unsure)

    follow all these points, protects yourself, and there should not be any issues.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Lisa Thomas
    Upvote 0

    gpietersz

    Free Member
  • Business Listing
    Sep 10, 2019
    2,774
    2
    736
    Northwhich, Cheshire
    pietersz.net
    Don't forget there are also plans afoot to make rogue Directors abusing the Strike Off process personally liable for third party tax debts such as VAT, PAYE, CIS Tax where companies are serially put down and phoenixed into a new company.

    What about non-tax debts? The biggest problem with serial phenix companies is that they leave a lot of inncoent customers or suppliers out of pocket.
     
    Upvote 0
    What about non-tax debts? The biggest problem with serial phoenix companies is that they leave a lot of innocent customers or suppliers out of pocket.

    I don't have much of a problem with suppliers being out of pocket as most don't bother taking out a credit report or insuring the debt and their management policy is to fulfil all orders whether they are likely to get paid or not.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: JEREMY HAWKE
    Upvote 0

    JEREMY HAWKE

    Business Member
  • Business Listing
    Mar 4, 2008
    8,610
    1
    4,048
    EXETER DEVON
    www.jeremyhawkecourier.co.uk
    I don't have much of a problem with suppliers being out of pocket as most don't bother taking out a credit report or insuring the debt and their management policy is to fulfil all orders whether they are likely to get paid or not.

    I agree your a mug if you give a Ltd company credit especially when directors have a history !

    You wont catch me getting caught by them anymore .
    Been on here too long :):):):)
     
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,696
    8
    8,012
    Newcastle
    These new powers not only strengthen our ability to investigate
    The new powers do not strenthen their abilty to investigate, only their power to investigate. To strengthen their ability they need to employ a huge number of investigators. Does no one speak English anymore?
     
    Upvote 0

    ChrisCallaghan

    Free Member
  • Business Listing
    Apr 10, 2018
    1,196
    2
    856
    Sheffield
    just a question what happens if all directors and shareholders resign once the SpongeBob process is started?

    It shouldn't be possible, but it is.

    Officially there should always be at least one director left standing, but it is possible for all directors to resign.

    Practically it doesn't achieve anything, other than a loss of control. Part of the SpongeBob plan is the potential that the company could end up in compulsory liquidation. Any future liquidator will still look at any and all directors going back two years. In addition the Insolvency Service is being granted powers to investigate the actions of directors of dissolved companies. I'm assuming they'll also be able to investigate the actions of resigned directors going back two years.

    Also.... the issue of overdrawn directors loan accounts has been often discussed on the Insolvency Forum here at UKBF. Resigning as a director does not make a directors loan account dissappear.

    Lastly.... the SpongeBob method is a very well written bit of guidance, and was true long before SpongeBob wrote and posted it. If directors resigning were of any benefit, it would be included in the plan.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: JEREMY HAWKE
    Upvote 0

    JEREMY HAWKE

    Business Member
  • Business Listing
    Mar 4, 2008
    8,610
    1
    4,048
    EXETER DEVON
    www.jeremyhawkecourier.co.uk
    Also.... the issue of overdrawn directors loan accounts has been often discussed on the Insolvency Forum here at UKBF. Resigning as a director does not make a directors loan account dissappear.
    I get the impression from here that employing a "well written plan " attempts to send a signal that the directors are now paupers and that there are no funds anywhere . Its a bit of a warning shot that sends a message dont waste your time chasing us . ! Its is simply hope and the advice backing such plans on here always ends with the sentence "Hopefully"

    How can you dissolve a firm and protect the future if your strategy is hope
     
    Upvote 0
    I get the impression from here that employing a "well written plan " attempts to send a signal that the directors are now paupers and that there are no funds anywhere . Its a bit of a warning shot that sends a message dont waste your time chasing us . ! Its is simply hope and the advice backing such plans on here always ends with the sentence "Hopefully"

    How can you dissolve a firm and protect the future if your strategy is hope

    A plan which often works in a thriving economy.

    As things get tougher, creditors will be chasing harder and harder. You can expect a lot of posts on here with people moaning that they are being chased for what they owe.
     
    Upvote 0

    ChrisCallaghan

    Free Member
  • Business Listing
    Apr 10, 2018
    1,196
    2
    856
    Sheffield
    @JEREMY HAWKE I've said it before and I'll say it again.... for directors who have no funds to pay a liquidator, the SpongeBob method is still the right option, despite all the developments in the last two years. It's just likely to take longer now with BBL lenders objecting to any strike off action.

    The only thing I would add to it, is that directors should also take some time to check the status of the directors loan account if they are a homeowner. If they find they have an overdrawn directors loan account, be prepared to have pay some or all of it back, and consider taking advice from an insolvency practice. It's better to be forewarned rather than having the OR threatening to bankrupt you to go after a property to repay a directors loan.
     
    Upvote 0
    I don't have much of a problem with suppliers being out of pocket as most don't bother taking out a credit report or insuring the debt and their management policy is to fulfil all orders whether they are likely to get paid or not.
    THIS! And with knobs on!

    It has never been easier to check on someone's credit and willingness to honour their debts. Yet even the government was stupid enough to hand out grants and BBLs to companies that were just not there or were dormant - or some other variation on that theme.
     
    Upvote 0

    Latest Articles