Fraudulent bankruptcy by bad management? Bob buys a successful company for a large amount of money, on loan from a Bank. Within a year, the company is bankrupt. Assume for the sake of the question that this is due to intentional or reckless poor management. The banks, as well as any suppliers, lose their money; all employees lose their jobs and 2 months of unpaid salaries. Does Bob have any liability if they intentionally or recklessly manage the company so poorly it ends up in bankruptcy?
Not as a shareholder The entire point of limited liability companies is that the shareholders are protected from the losses of the company - they can only lose the amount they paid (or still owe) for their shares. The directors and officers of a company have various duties that they owe to the company and can be held liable if they breach those duties. Those duties are: the duty of loyalty, the duty of care, the right to rely on certain information, the business judgment rule, and fiduciary duties in the context of insolvency, corporate opportunities, and interested director transactions (or insider transactions) &quot;[I]ntentional or reckless poor management&quot; would, on the face of it, appear to breach the duty of care and the business judgement rule and could expose the directors to liability. However, Bob is a shareholder; not a director or officer. If he is not involved in the company beyond appointing the directors, he is not liable. If he points himself as a director or becomes an officer by telling the directors what to do, then he could be liable.
The crime of theft generally requires two elements - taking control of property, and the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. If Bob had no intent to leave without paying, he may lack the intent often required for theft. In the scenario described, it's possible Bob has not committed theft, but his actions may indeed constitute theft depending on the jurisdiction. As pointed out in the comments, some jurisdictions codify the concealment of merchandise as prima facie presumption of an intention to steal, or may even codify the act of concealment itself as a crime. There are some shoplifting laws statues that specifically call out &quot;willful concealment&quot;, which does not require leaving the premises of a store to have committed a crime - merely concealing the item may be a crime in itself, although perhaps not the crime of &quot;theft&quot;. Whether a court would find Bob guilty of theft will depend on a number of factors, depending if there is leeway in inferring intent, and how that intent is inferred. If Bob's actions are found to be sufficiently inconsistent with the behavior of someone who truly intended to pay, the court may find him guilty. If a reasonable person would infer a lack of intent to pay from Bob's actions, he may be found guilty.
You can't sue for false promise per se, but it might enter into a suit for something else. It sounds like your employer offered you a choice between coming in to work (extremely difficult), termination or furlough (extremely undesirable), versus working at home (the preferable option), and the latter was contingent on you doing things that relate to being able to work at home (get a computer and so on). Relying on that promise, you purchased a computer: but then they decided that you had to come in to work. Based just on that, you could sue them for damages (maybe the computer, maybe the added cost of finding a new babysitter, possibly loss of wages). They might want to argue that they don't owe you anything, but your lawyer would (legally) prevent them from making that argument, using what is known as promissory estoppel. You took certain actions based on their promise, so you are entitled to rely on that promise. Their counter-argument would probably be that you didn't do what you were supposed to do, and your attorney would respond that the company obstructed you from doing what had to be done, or had not taken reasonable steps to say in advance what was required of you.
No Or at least not necessarily. Contract terms are legally one of three types: Conditions, Warranties, or Intermediate. Breach of any term allows the aggrieved party to sue to recover damages - monetary compensation to restore them to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Breach of a condition also (or instead) allows them to terminate a contract. Breach of a warranty does not. Intermediate terms are terms that might be a condition or might be a warranty depending on how egregious the breach was. A contract can explicitly make a term a condition, the historical and still used phrase being that X is “of the essence”. If the contract is not explicit (most aren’t), then that is the concept that the court uses to decide - is the term “of the essence”, that is, absolutely fundamental to the performance of the contract. Similarly a term can be explicitly a warranty, usually by saying party Y “warrants” something. Most incidental or procedural terms are warranties - if breached, they never give rise to a right to terminate. Most terms are intermediate, particularly most terms about time. Normally, intermediate terms are warranties but if a breach is egregious enough, then this can elevate the term to a condition. Payment terms are a classic: if you are a day or a week late in making payment, the other party can’t cancel the contract. If you are a year late, they can. Somewhere in between, your breach changes the term from a warranty to a condition. For your situation, the early delivery is clearly a breach of a warranty, not a condition. If it even is a breach - the contract may say that they are obliged to deliver by 1 December: delivery on 1 November is clearly in compliance with that term. If it is a breach, you do not have the right to terminate the contract and if you tried you would be breaching the contract yourself by repudiation. By the way, repudiating the contract is definitely breaching a condition. A huge number of contract disputes turn on who validly terminated and who repudiated the contract. If it is a breach, you can sue for damages which, since they have not charged you for November, would be what it cost you or what you lost by having their bin on your premises for a month. My guess that this would be in the order of zero.
The simple answer is, get a lawyer and explain your case, and pay him to solve the problem (or tell you that it's hopeless). The two main questions would be whether the appraiser have any duty to you, and whether his action was within the scope of what he is supposed to do. If you hired the appraiser, he has a duty to you. I will assume it was you that hired the appraiser (if it was the bank, that's a different matter). Then the question is whether his action or non-action is within the scope of the job. If the place is infested with termites, that is probably irrelevant because an appraiser is not a termite inspector. On the other hand, if he failed to measure the structure, or erred substantially in the measurement, that kind of negligence could be legally actionable. The seller (not the appraiser) is required to "disclose", so it's not obvious that there is any thing that an appraiser could disclose that relates to a map.
How much does your company have in assets? When you dissolve the company, and the company has £100,000 in assets that gets distributed to the share holders, then you would most likely be liable up to those £100,000 if problems creep up. On the other hand, if you extracted £100,000 from the company as a loan, then closed down the company, you would also most likely be liable up to those £100,000. If there were no assets, no outstanding loans and so on, you should be quite safe. And of course you might know whether you have done something that you could be sued for.
Based on your answers, it sounds like this transaction was most likely structured in one of two ways: (a) your colleague bought the computer with the intention that you would use it and then return it to him when you were done borrowing it for a task he hired you for; or (b) your colleague bought the computer with the intention that you would keep it as payment for the work he hired you for. In either case, it seems you would have to return the computer. In the first case, you received the computer only on the understanding that you would return it when you were done with the work. Because you are retaining it while your colleague owns it, your colleague could puruse a replevin action to force you to return the computer, or a conversaion action to force you to pay the value of replacing it. Scaffidi v. United Nissan, 425 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1168 (D. Nev. 2005). In the second case, you would not be entitled to keep the computer because you failed to perform your contract. Because you are not going to complete the work you agreed to, you are not entitled to the keep the computer your colleague agreed to give you in payment.
I assume that the loan was legal, in light of rule changes pertaining to non-borrowing spouses. If so, there is really no recourse other than to repay the loan. This article explains the current options / restrictions in an understandable manner, but of course it is too late to do anything about it. If there was actually fraud or coercion in the loan, or if the elder party was mentally incompetent, there might be some legal recourse, but we don't have any evidence of fraud, coercion or incompetence here.