Directors' disqualification after the Insolvency Act 2000: the new regime

Scope of amendments to 1986 Act allowing Secretary of State to accept disqualification undertakings from directors instead of resorting to disqualification orders and practical implications of new procedures, including cost incentives

Section 236 of the Insolvency Act and directors' disqualification

The question for the House of Lords in Re Pantmaenog Timber Co Ltd, Official Receiver v Wadge Rapps and Hunt was whether the powers conferred by s.236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA”) can lawfully be exercised solely or principally to obtain evidence for use in disqualification proceedings under the Company Directors' Disqualification Act 1986 (“CDDA”). It is important to stress that the question was simply one of jurisdiction : on the application of an administrator, administrative receiver, liquidator, provisional liquidator or the official receiver does the court have the power to summon any of the categories of person described in s.236(2) to provide the applicant with information and/or documents where the information and/or documents are required solely or principally in connection with disqualification proceedings that are being contemplated or are already pending

Bare undertakings in directors' disqualification proceedings: the Insolvency Act 2000, Blackspur and beyond

Background to, and key features of, regime of directors' disqualification through undertakings introduced under 2000 Act, possible undermining of objectives of 1986 Act and implications of Blackspur case

Time to wind up Hollington v Hewthorn?

Explains how evidence, which would otherwise be inadmissible under either the hearsay rule or the rule in Hollington v F Hewthorn & Co Ltd, may be admissible in winding-up proceedings or directors disqualification proceedings under either the Civil Evidence Act 1995 s.1 or an implied exception to the rules. Comments on the Court of Appeal ruling in Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Aaron on the admissibility in directors disqualification proceedings of a Financial Services Authority report and Financial Ombudsman Service decisions

Supreme Court Leaks and Recusals: A Response to Professor Steven Lubet\u27s SCOTUS Ethics in the Wake of NFIB v. Sebelius

As Professor Steven Lubet notes in his article, Stonewalling, Leaks, and Counter-Leaks: SCOTUS Ethics in the Wake of NFIB v. Sebelius, the ethical conduct of Supreme Court Justices has once again gained national attention. This time, however, the context for public outcry is due to actions of an in-house source who released confidential information to a member of the press concerning the voting behavior and the overall sentiments of members of the Court\u27s minority in one of the most significant and controversial rulings of the year: NFIB v. Sebelius (the Affordable Care Act ). Professor Lubet uses this leaking of significant and confidential information regarding the Court\u27s deliberations in the Affordable Care Act case as a segue into what he believes is a much larger group of issues-those concerning Supreme Court ethics and regulation of the conduct of members of the Court, the need for the adoption by the Court of a comprehensive code of judicial conduct to govern the actions of the Justices, and the need for reform of the Court\u27s recusal process and practices. In my response, I briefly evaluate the validity of a few of Professor Lubet\u27s comments and arguments addressing some of these issues, the viability of his suggestion for adopting a comprehensive code of judicial conduct to govern members of the Court, and his ideas for reforming the Court\u27s recusal process. I conclude by sharing a few of my own thoughts and suggestions on these important issues