From the Professional Accountancy team…...
Background
In the case of Downtul Limited (in liquidation ) Patrick O'Connell, Ciaran Butler and Colum Butler the liquidator of Downtul Limited (“Downtul”) sought to have two directors (the Respondents) restricted for a period of 5 years from acting as director or secretary of a company. Downtul entered a lease (“Lease”) with Stephen Court Limited (landlord) in respect of a property from which a Starbucks outlet was operated. A separate related company (Atercin Liffey Unlimited Company, “Atercin”) operated the Starbucks. Downtul did not occupy or use the leased property and had no income, or means to generate income, to discharge the liabilities arising under the Lease, including rent. There was also no evidence of any enforceable mechanism for Downtul to recover monies from Atercin to meet its liabilities.
Restriction of director -acting honestly & responsibly
The case established that Downtul bore the liability and burden of the Lease. The separate related company Atercin occupied and traded from the property and earned revenue from that trade. At all times since the Lease was entered, Atercin and not Downtul had occupied the Property and operated the coffee shop throughout the term of the Lease. There was no evidence of any agreement or consideration being given to the rights of Downtul. In allowing Downtul to enter and maintain these arrangements, and in failing to ensure an enforceable mechanism by which Downtul could obtain the funds necessary to discharge its liabilities as they fell due or otherwise protect its position, the Respondents failed to demonstrate responsible conduct with regard to the interests of Downtul as a separate legal entity within the Group. Mainly for the above reasons the judge was not satisfied the respondents has acted responsibly in conducting the affairs of Downtul.
It was noted that a finding of illegality or unlawfulness is not required to restrict a director under S819. the fact that a transaction is not unlawful does not mean it is not relevant to assessing a director’s honesty or responsibility.
The judge also said that the failure to keep proper accounting records, the omission of material disclosures from the financial statements and the failure to minute a single board meeting since 2017 are also – independently of her primary findings of irresponsibility – separate grounds on which she was not satisfied that the Respondents acted responsibly.
As she was not satisfied that the Respondents acted responsibly with regard to the conduct of the affairs of Downtul the judge said she was mandated by section 819(2) to make the declaration of restriction sought by the Liquidator.
Accounting records and materiality/disclosure/corporate governance
The judgement stated that there were no accounting records, disclosures in financial statements, or board minutes which even refer to the apparent arrangements between Downtul and Atercin. The financial statements make no reference to the Lease or to the receipt of monies from Atercin to pay the rent and other charges associated with the Starbucks property. This the court said underlines the lack of transparency in relation to the affairs of Downtul. Company accounts and records should contain a true and fair view of the company’s financial position.
The case also considered the issue of disclosure of material transactions under FRS 102(1A) to ensure a “true and fair view” is given of the company’s financial position. The judge said that a responsible view of Downtul’s financial position would lead to the conclusion that the Lease and issues that arose with the landlord (rent suspension, legal proceedings) are matters that would be material for a user of the financial statements. The evidence and perspective of the Liquidator that these items collectively are material and significant for Downtul was accepted by the court.
The judge found in the particular circumstances of Downtul, and the specific evidence adduced, the books that were kept were not sufficient to demonstrate a responsible approach by the Respondents to the maintenance of accounting records such as to enable compliance with section 282 of the Companies Act 2014. the fact that it is a small company or a company with limited activity does not provide an excuse or justification for not maintaining even a minimum record of Downtul’s transactions (quite apart from the more fundamental issues with Downtul’s interaction with Atercin).
Finally, on the corporate governance side the judge noted that the Respondents chose to become directors of more than 170 and more than 200 companies respectively. Being a director of so many companies brings with it onerous and important responsibilities. She was not suggesting this is a light task when the Respondents are responsible for some 150- 200 companies, but it was the Respondents who made the decision to incorporate and direct the affairs of such a significant number of companies. The fact they have so burdened themselves cannot absolve them of the obligation to separately discharge the duties incumbent on them in each of those roles. The only question is whether they acted responsibly with regard to the affairs of Downtul. In the absence of any record of a meeting or decision with regard to Downtul from 2017 onwards, she simply could not be, and was not, satisfied in that respect.
Conclusion
The judgment contains an extensive examination of the grounds for restricting a director under section 819 of Companies Act 2014. There are other useful aspects to this judgment also, including for example an account of the relevant duties of expert witnesses.
Readers should note that the judge found that the respondents discharged the burden of showing they acted honestly. However, because she found they had not acted responsibly this was enough to trigger the operation of the restriction provisions in section 819.
It should also be noted that the directors have been restricted for 5 years, not disqualified. Restricted means that the person cannot act as a company director (or secretary) for 5 years unless the company of which they wish to be director has an allotted share capital of €100,000 (in the case of companies other than PLCs) with each allotted share to be paid for in cash.
Readers can find out more about disqualification of directors in the Corporate Enforcement Authority’s very useful note on the subject CEA Information Note 2024/1 -Circumstances leading to disqualification under the Companies Act 2014 and the associated consequences.
This information is provided as resources and information only and nothing in these pages purports to provide professional advice or definitive legal interpretation(s) or opinion(s) on the applicable legislation or legal or other matters referred to in the pages. If the reader is in doubt on any matter in this complex area further legal or other advice must be obtained. While every reasonable care has been taken by the Institute in the preparation of these pages, we do not guarantee the accuracy or veracity of any resource, guidance, information or opinion, or the appropriateness, suitability or applicability of any practice or procedure contained therein. The Institute is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the results obtained from the use of the resources or information contained in these pages.
LOADING...