The selection of liquidators by shareholders in the insolvency process is a subject rife with nuances and complexities. It carries implications not only for the immediate stakeholders but also for the broader principles of corporate governance and financial ethics. Brent Norling of Norling Law and Damien Grant of Waterstone Insolvency discuss the issues that can arise from a shareholder-appointed liquidator.
There is the common perception that a shareholder-appointed liquidator is going to be friendly to the director. Further, creditors can become suspicious of liquidators appointed by the director. We discuss whether that perception is rightly held. We also discuss what you should do if you are a creditor and a shareholder appoints a liquidator.
This article delves into the intricacies of this process, examining the perceptions, ethical considerations, incentive structures, and strategic implications for all parties involved.
The operation of liquidators is significantly influenced by their professional networks, primarily consisting of accountants and lawyers. These networks are not just social but are deeply entwined with the potential for future business, creating a delicate balance. The threat of losing future referrals for taking actions against a referred client’s interest introduces a moral hazard, making liquidators tread a thin line between aggressive enforcement of rules and the maintenance of professional relationships.
One prevalent notion in the realm of insolvency is the belief that liquidators, when appointed by shareholders, might inherently favour the interests of the directors or the appointing shareholders themselves. While this perception holds water in certain circles, it’s crucial to understand that it doesn’t blanketly apply to all cases. The ethical landscape within which liquidators operate is far more complex, governed by both statutory duties and professional integrity that mandates a balanced consideration of all stakeholders’ interests.
Regulatory frameworks are designed to mitigate potential biases and ensure that the actions of liquidators are aligned with the broader interest of all stakeholders, not just those who appoint them. These regulations are critical in maintaining the integrity of the insolvency process, ensuring that it remains fair and just for all parties involved, including creditors who might not have a say in the appointment of liquidators.
The complexity of the liquidation process is further amplified by the dual roles often played by liquidators or their advisors. On one hand, there’s a strategic component to structuring liquidations in a manner that minimises compulsory actions, often advocated for shareholders. On the other hand, there’s a crucial role in mobilizing creditors to ensure their voices are heard, especially in creditor meetings where the replacement of a liquidator might be on the agenda. This duality underscores the strategic nuances inherent in navigating the insolvency process.
Creditors’ meetings emerge as a pivotal avenue for stakeholders to exercise their influence, potentially swinging the decision to replace a liquidator. The significance of these meetings cannot be overstated, as they represent one of the few practical opportunities for creditors to assert their collective will and influence the direction of the insolvency proceedings.
In scenarios where the alignment of a liquidator’s actions with creditor interests comes into question, the formation of a creditors committee becomes a strategic tool. While not wielding significant legal power, these committees are instrumental in facilitating engagement and negotiation, offering a platform for creditors to voice their concerns and influence the process.
The importance of active engagement from all parties involved in insolvency proceedings can’t be stressed enough. Whether it’s through strategic structuring of the liquidation process or participation in creditors’ meetings, the active involvement of stakeholders is key to navigating the complexities of insolvency, ensuring that outcomes are balanced and just.
The landscape of shareholder-appointed liquidators is fraught with ethical dilemmas, strategic considerations, and regulatory challenges. Understanding these facets is crucial for all stakeholders involved in the insolvency process. It demands a nuanced appreciation of the incentives at play and the regulatory safeguards designed to ensure fairness. As the corporate world continues to evolve, so too will the dynamics of insolvency proceedings, necessitating a continued focus on ethical practices, strategic engagement, and regulatory compliance.
At Norling Law, we offer a FREE 30-minute legal consult. Get in touch if you need help.
Brent is the Director of Norling Law. He has a wealth of experience in the District Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Brent is passionate about negotiating favourable outcomes for his clients and able to implement this in his daily negotiations.
Book a free consultation to get clarity on your options and next steps
We’ve been guiding people through times of uncertainty since 2015. Talk to us for free to see what we can do for you.
