There are many grounds which give rise to disqualification as a director - the most of which by far relate to non payment of taxes to HMRC by the company. But there are other grounds such as excessive pay. Whatever the reason or allegations against you - our team has been successfully defending director disqualification claims since 2002. Let us help you.
One of the most astute appointments I have ever madeA company director we successfully defended against disqualification
Unfitness and misconduct of directors is governed by section 6 of the Company Director Disqualification Act 1986. One of the areas it deals with is director disqualification for excessive pay and excessive dividends. Our other web pages on section 6 of the CDDA 1986 can give you further background.
What is the general issue?
The allegation is normally one of a director withdrawing excessive remuneration and/or dividends which isn’t appropriate to the financial circumstances of the company at the time the payments were made.
- this can be applicable either to a failure to act in accordance with the Companies Act 2006 (which sets down specific circumstances in which dividends can be drawn); or
- in accordance with a director’s general fiduciary duties to the company and, more particularly, its creditors.
The same is true in respect of a director who is also a shareholder. If that director allows dividends to be paid to himself as a shareholder which the company cannot afford, this too can constitute misconduct. It is a breach of the Companies Act 2006 to pay a dividend which exceeds net profits (after taxes) available for distribution. It is also a breach of a director’s fiduciary duties to do this where such a payment could lead to risks to a company or its creditors and it can lead to a finding of unfitness.
Generally speaking, distributions by a company must not exceed the distributable profits of a company as defined in companies legislation.
Ideally, a dividend should satisfy the following criterion
- it should not exceed the amount of profits retained to the end of the accounting period. Note: if a company has made losses for several years and then makes a profit, it may not be able to pay a dividend because the current year’s profits are insufficient to provide a net retained profit;
- it should only be paid whilst the company is a going concern or, if not, then there is adequate provision to pay all other creditors of the company;
- it should be paid in accordance to the availability of funds necessary to enable the company’s on-going trading, rather than stripping out all available monies;
- the availability of distributable profits should be after allowing for any written off assets or after providing for any income which is unlikely to be paid;
- the directors should be reasonably confident, on an objective basis, that the company faces no short-term trading risks (other than in the ordinary course of business) and that payment of a dividend will not inhibit the company’s ability to deal with any such risks.
A decision to pay a dividend should ideally be documented in a directors’ board meeting minute together with the reasons for payment in accordance with the above criterion.
Can a director be disqualified if the remuneration appeared reasonable at the time?
If a company allows a director to draw remuneration which appeared reasonable on the basis of information available to that person at the time, this is not seen as acting improperly. This is even so where hindsight demonstrates that the remuneration was overly generous. However, the reasonableness of the payment will have to be established and similar considerations need to be made to payment of remuneration as apply to dividends.
Does a failure to recover unlawful dividends result in director disqualification?
Failure by directors to recover repayment of an unlawfully paid dividend does not always in itself amount to misconduct justifying a finding of unfitness. In the case of Re: Thornton Construction Limited, the directors evidenced that they had relied on the advice of company solicitors who had indicated (wrongly) that such payments would not be recoverable.
- however, in the absence of such incorrect advice, failure to take appropriate action to recover such dividends could constitute a director disqualification breach;
- as a caveat to this we also point out that under the Companies Act 2006 a director has a duty to independently consider such advice. In the above circumstances, if a director was aware of an ability to recover a dividend or obtain a repayment, despite this advice s/he could still be liable for failing to recover such sums.
Does there have to be a minimum period over which the payments to directors are made?
The answer is no.
Payment of excessive remuneration over even a relatively short period can be a director disqualification offence leading to a finding of unfitness. It is also likely that a director paying himself/herself even a relatively small amount ahead of paying company debts/creditors in circumstances where the company was struggling will lead to a finding of unfitness.
Does the court look at other benefits in kind when considering director disqualification?
The court will take into account payments not only of “physical” money but also benefits in kind – typically payments of pension contributions, private medical insurance, cars and repayments of loan capital.
Essentially, the director disqualification court looks at the “entire package” when deciding on the question of excessive remuneration. This can and often does include the payment of a dividend, where the director is also a shareholder.
How often should the question of directors’ remuneration be looked at?
The answer is regularly.
The director disqualification courts will examine whether the director’s remuneration which happened to be reasonable in one period was reasonable in another period. A minimum of a year on year analysis is sensible by the director or board of directors when determining the levels of remuneration or dividends. A more frequent review is sensible if the company’s financial performance is deteriorating.
Is the market value of the directors’ services relevant when considering director disqualification?
Normally it is not relevant.
The simple question to be answered is whether the “package” could be properly afforded by the company at the time it was made.
- market rate of a similar role isn’t relevant when establishing whether it was reasonable or not. It is also irrelevant if the director could have earned more elsewhere for doing the same job. The “going rate” is irrelevant and evidencing that a person took home less than the market rate is irrelevant;
- it does not matter either what a director needed to draw on at the time in order to “make ends meet”.
The duty on a director is to ensure that the company can afford to make payments it does at the time it does. If he/she does not, it could be a director disqualification offence.
Collective responsibility of all directors in matters of remuneration
There is a collective responsibility on all the directors of a company to consider the company’s financial position when determining both how much each individual director should withdraw from the company and also the combined total of all the directors’ remuneration.
If a director fails to request that the board considers the overall effect on the company of the combined remuneration and the company later fails, this can amount to misconduct and a finding of unfitness even if that particular director’s remuneration package was not in itself excessive.
- the court may also look at the roles of directors and whether the payments to them all or each individually were reasonable in light of their contribution;
- this is aimed at dealing with non-executive directors who are unable to take dividends from a company because of a lack of distributable profits but who may instead draw an income as a director’s salary, despite providing comparatively less input into the development and growth of the company.
What about payments to employees. Do they matter for the purposes of director disqualification?
The same principle applies.
If an employee is paid excessively and this damages the financial viability of a company, the directors can be found guilty of misconduct under s6 of the CDDA in agreeing that level of salary. Additionally, employees who are paid excessively could potentially be subject to director disqualification proceedings as a de facto or shadow director.
This can be even more serious where the employee is an “associate”, as case law recognises the use of family and friends to extract value from a company (see our comments below on family members).
What if a director reduces his level of remuneration?
This can obviously help when answering allegations of excessive remuneration. However, if the effect of the reduction still meant that the “package” could not reasonably be afforded by the company, a finding of unfitness is likely. It can still count as a director disqualification breach.
What about payments to family members?
Payments to family members are normally fine so long as those individuals are doing something of value for the company. In circumstances where it can be shown that the value of the work done was “referable” to what they were paid, this should avoid any criticism.
However, family members simply on the payroll in order to extract money from the company for no obvious reason or role can constitute misconduct by the directors in the event the company later fails. This is quite common in husband and wife appointments as directors, where only one of them is running the company and the other is just named perhaps for income, tax or corporate governance purposes.
Our team of experts at Francis Wilks & Jones are here to help you with any type of question or issue you may have. Contact one of our friendly disqualification lawyers now for your confidential consultation. Whatever your director disqualification needs, we can show you examples of similar cases we have successfully assisted with.
If there was ever a star rating for law firms, Francis Wilks & Jones would score five stars plus. Professional and pro-active, they were able to understand my problem quickly, provide expert advice, outline a solution and put it into place with a successful outcome. I should have gone to them soonerA client we successfully defended in director disqualification and insolvency related proceedings