upland
Member of DD Central
Posts: 478 
Likes: 175
|
Post by upland on Jun 30, 2018 8:00:20 GMT
I did not realize that we were paying for the investigation of possible breach of laws, I thought that there were proper authorities to deal with suspected lawbreakers paid for by the state Its section 9 , page 16 of "Collateral Companies - Joint Administrators' Proposals 21 June 2018". I dont think that it will cost that much , perhaps just a few BMWs for the office juniors ?
|
|
m2btj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 626
Likes: 749
|
Post by m2btj on Jun 30, 2018 10:01:04 GMT
Never been a fan of professions that can write their own pay cheques...I've signed.
|
|
snowmobile
Member of DD Central
Posts: 230 
Likes: 448
|
Post by snowmobile on Jun 30, 2018 10:03:26 GMT
As we now know one of the problems of Collateral's ring-fenced assets is that the records of them may not be available. In olden days when a business went bust it required a deliberate act on the part of someone to shred anything that might embarrass. The law requires records to be retained so their destruction would be illegal. Nowadays simply not paying a few bills appears to result in records being lost. I am no lawyer but it raises in my mind the question that legislation on business records retention may not have kept pace with new technology - perhaps someone knows better? I am no lawyer either but I can provide some insight into the requirements surrounding retention of records. As a general rule records must be kept for 6 years for corporation tax purposes, even where a company has been wound up. There is a useful ICAEW document here, which outlines the responsibilities of directors in relation to keeping and retaining accounting records. It explains how the Companies Act 2006 updated legislation with regard to 'electronic records'. Two relevant points standing out are: Ultimately it is the responsibility of the directors. Failure to meet these responsibilities can result in fines, disqualification as a director and imprisonment. Some further points from the above document, in relation to penalties and disqualification orders: This situation is somewhat clouded by the company being in purported administration when the records were destroyed. My understanding is that the purported administration was declared invalid by the court when BDO were appointed. I find it implausible that any reputable IT services provider would purposely destroy data, especially if payments were less than two months in arrears. Regardless it would remain the responsibility of the directors to ensure that adequate backups were in place for such eventualities.
|
|
upland
Member of DD Central
Posts: 478
Likes: 175
|
Post by upland on Jun 30, 2018 10:13:27 GMT
This situation is somewhat clouded by the company being in purported administration when the records were destroyed. My understanding is that the purported administration was declared invalid by the court when BDO were appointed. Clouded - true but I would hope that it would be viewed as a lame excuse. We pay directors to think "outside the box" and "to go the extra mile" and "to be responsible with a duty of care".
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,845
Likes: 11,072
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 30, 2018 10:57:24 GMT
I wondered whether this situation is without precedent. I note that part of the remit of the administrators is to investigate conduct of the directors. I feel that for their money that the people in charge are required to sort out the problems that are difficult otherwise we could do it all with office staff on a minimum wage. Hopefully the investigation will find them lacking , and possibly others. I did not realize that we were paying for the investigation of possible breach of laws, I thought that there were proper authorities to deal with suspected lawbreakers paid for by the state An administratoe/liquidator has a statuary duty to report on the conduct of the directors etc to the Secretary of State. The company has failed therefore the reasons for that failure need to be ascertained but they arent investigating criminal wrongdoing, they are merely providing facts on the actions of the directors, it would be up to others whether these findings would lead to a criminal or misconduct investigation ... Insolvency Service & Offical Receiver I think.
|
|
