Read almost any article about the recent demise of BHS and you will be drawn into a lurid tale of directors and advisers allegedly driven by greed, self-interest and showing a stunning lack of judgment. Indeed, you could be forgiven for thinking it was an episode of House of Cards starring Wall Street's own Gordon Gekko. Yet for all the vitriol and indignation expressed by the public, government and media, no one has yet been held accountable.

BHS was founded in 1928 and was bought by Sir Philip Green in 2000. In March last year it was sold to Dominic Chappell's Retail Acquisitions Limited for £1. Just over one year later, it went into administration. There was an immediate public outcry and soon afterwards, the joint report by the work and pensions committee and business, innovation and skills committee was produced.

Running to 61 pages, it is damning and emotive. In its conclusions, Sir Philip, Mr Chappell and other directors, advisers and "hangers on" are all identified as culpable. The report repeatedly criticises Sir Philip for (among other things) pushing through a rushed sale to someone he should have known was a wholly unsuitable purchaser.

The report finds that his failure to resolve the problems of the BHS pension contributed substantially to the company's demise and that he has a "moral duty to act" to resolve this problem.

By the last page of the report, one could almost hear the cries of "outrage!" and "something must be done!" from the masses picketing outside Westminster. However, to date, not a lot has happened. The Pensions Regulator has sent warning notices to Sir Philip, his group and Mr Chappell. The Financial Reporting Council launched an official investigation in June into the PwC audit of BHS for the 2013-14 financial year after a preliminary enquiry.

The Serious Fraud Office is looking into the collapse of BHS but no full investigation has yet been announced. Further, the bar to merit a full investigation by the SFO is high and although an investigation into PwC's audit is welcome, it will not address the actions of those parties that the report claims are the cause of this collapse. Indeed, while the report has a very loud bark, it seemingly has no bite.

Other legal mechanisms do exist that could seek to hold the culpable to account. The Companies Act 2006 has tried to codify the duties of directors and the Insolvency Act 1986 contains provisions aimed at constraining and penalising wrongful or fraudulent trading and misfeasance by directors.

Various other employment and pension laws also govern directorial behaviour. But are our laws adequate as a tool for driving corporate responsibility?

Arguably, the law's role is not to impose morality on directors. Morality and law are related, but the law is not a moral code, and for good reason. Whose moral code would the law apply? Yours? Mine?

As for our insolvency law, in its purist form, it exists merely to create an orderly winding up out of the unfairness and chaos of insolvencies, such as that of BHS.

So it may be that our law is not unfit for purpose but rather that its purpose is not what one might wish it were. As a solution, our insolvency law may benefit from adopting an outcome-based approach to the issue of directorial culpability in an insolvency. In other words, companies fail for many different reasons. The difficulty for the law is in identifying those corporate failures attributable to culpability of the directors, rather than outside causes.

A mechanism similar to that used in tax law, where a distinction is drawn between "evasion" and "avoidance", may be useful in interrogating the motives of directors and thereafter attributing appropriate responsibility and sanctions on the culpable.

That said, if we employ the law to reduce the risk of failure by punishing harshly the authors of those failures, we do so at the risk of discouraging entrepreneurial risk-taking and inadvertently harming the economy in a way that is probably more difficult to correct.

© MacRoberts 2016

Disclaimer

The material contained in this article is of the nature of general comment only and does not give advice on any particular matter. Recipients should not act on the basis of the information in this e-update without taking appropriate professional advice upon their own particular circumstances.