Following a long line of cases preceding it, the English court in Re Van Gansewinkel Groep BV (‘VGG’) 1 has sanctioned a (solvent) English scheme of arrangement (‘Scheme’) under the Companies Act 2006 (the ‘Companies Act’) proposed by a group of foreign companies whose COMI2 and assets were located outside of England (‘foreign companies’).
While there are smart ways to avoid the debt collection process, sometimes you have to hire a professional. After all, you have your business to run and dealing with delinquent accounts can be draining on your resources, time and patience. That said, not every debt collection specialist is created equal and not every company will be right for your unique business. Here are a few things you should consider when selecting a partner in the process.
Do the Research
Key Point
Court finds equity to rescind a contract does not mean sums paid by relevant counterparties are held on constructive trust.
The Facts
Two currency exchange companies (the "Companies") were placed in creditors' voluntary liquidation, holding sums in their bank accounts with Barclays, and in their own counting houses. The liquidators made applications to determine whether the Companies held such monies on trust for their customers.
The Decision
In Winnington Networks Communications Ltd v HMRC[1], the Chancery Division Companies Court (Nicholas Le Poidevin QC) refused the taxpayer company's application to have HMRC's winding-up petitions dismissed, as it had failed to provide evidence that it had a real prospect of successfully disputing the debt claimed by HMRC.
Background
Latest Lehman judgment reassures end users on Close-out Rights
It is undeniable that the legal complexities, and unprecedented facts, of the long running Lehman Brothers saga have generated a wealth of legal principal, most notably through the Waterfall series of litigation.
Summary
English insolvency law is about to change, making it harder for IT suppliers to stop supplying when a customer goes into an insolvency procedure. The aim is to help administrators and others to secure the supply of IT products and services that might be needed to rescue failing businesses.
Dealing with subject access requests (“SAR”s) under the Data Protection Act 1998 is becoming a regular occurrence for many organisations, particularly banks and their advisors. Processing such requests can take up significant manpower and the costs can be substantial. Whilst designed to allow individuals to access personal data, determine its source, why it is held and who it is shared with, in reality SARs are frequently being used as a fishing exercise for prospective litigation and complaints against institutions such as banks. The recent case of
On 31 July 2015, the English High Court delivered its judgments in the ‘Waterfall IIA’ and ‘Waterfall IIB’ cases. The decisions are important to stakeholders in determining key questions about how, following payment in 2014 of all the provable claims, the estimated £7.39-billion surplus (the ‘Surplus’) in Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) (‘LBIE’) will be shared amongst them. For others, the decisions may be of general interest in probing some rarely aired legal issues relating to the lower levels of the insolvency payment waterfall.
In recent times, the legal profession has undergone widespread changes at the bequest of previous governments. The most draconian measures have been in relation to the expense of professional services. These include a budgeting and costs management process which is the subject of judicial approval. In essence, service provider’s fees and expenses are estimated and capped in advance of them being incurred.
Summary
On 12 May 2015, the English High Court provided guidance on the interpretation of the Loss provision under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement in its judgment in Fondazione Enasarco v Lehman Brothers Finance S.A. and another [2014] EWHC 34 (Ch). The judgment will be of interest to participants in the derivatives markets as it provides: