Phoenix companies: prohibited names
When a limited liability company fails and a director of that business continues to trade under the same or a similar name after its failure, there is often disquiet. This is particularly the case where the director is thought to have acquired the assets of the company at a knock-down price from the liquidator of the old company, despite the company leaving a raft of unpaid creditors.
The law attempts to prevent this ‘phoenix phenomenon’ by proscribing the use of a ‘prohibited name’ except in certain circumstances, criminalising contravention of the rules and making anyone guilty of such contravention personally responsible for all debts of the new company.
The relevant provisions are contained in sections 216 and 217 of the Insolvency Act 1986…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Winckworth Sherwood briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Winckworth Sherwood
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Winckworth Sherwood
The EAT considered whether an employee who said she was too ill to resign for 18 months and who received 39 weeks’ sick pay during that period had affirmed her contract.
It is possible for employers to defend unfair dismissal claims arising from inappropriate use of social media even if the misconduct is not work-related.