In this article, we examine (1) the new regime for safeguarding of customer funds applying to UK payment and electronic money institutions, (2) the impact these reforms will have on those firms and (3) in particular, the indirect effect the reforms will have on banks holding safeguarded funds and insolvency practitioners who manage the insolvency of a failed payment or electronic money institution.

This is the message the courts are sending to office holders seeking approval of their fees. In two recent English High Court decisions, both handed down by HHJ Cawson KC, the courts clearly expect office-holders, as fiduciaries, to produce a sufficient and proportionate level of information to justify the level of fees being claimed.

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics, according to Mark Twain, are pliable. While the author of Tom Sawyer likely wasn’t thinking about the annual UK insolvency statistics, they certainly illustrate his point. The Telegraph uses the 2024 statistics, released Tuesday, to criticise Rachel Reeves, suggesting that an increase in compulsory liquidations in 2024 is a direct result of the October budget. Given that the financial impact of the budget will not be felt directly by businesses until April 2025, this is very much a case of putting the cart before the horse.

The question of whether it is competent for the court to order a retrospective administration order has been the subject of much debate before the English courts. However, until now, there have been no reported Scottish decisions dealing with the point.

The Times reported yesterday on the continued promotion of an “insolvency avoidance” scheme, despite efforts by the Insolvency Service to close it down. The scheme claims to offer directors of distressed companies a means of avoiding formal liquidation – with the associated scrutiny of their actions and risk of personal liability.

Shareholder disputes can often be complex and emotionally charged, particularly in small or family-owned companies where personal relationships and business interests are deeply intertwined. When such disputes reach an impasse, the law provides several mechanisms for resolution. In particular, disgruntled shareholders have the ability to bring statutory based claims against the company.

They say every man needs protection, they say that every man must fall.¹

When individuals and certain entities (such as partnerships, trusts and other unincorporated bodies) have debts that they are unable to repay to their creditors, they may consider or be faced with bankruptcy, which is known as sequestration in Scotland. However, sequestration is just one avenue. Alternative statutory debt solutions are available, which can provide breathing space and allow debts to be repaid over time, without creditor pressure.

While franchising has typically been a more robust business model than others, it remains susceptible to broader economic and sectoral pressures, as The Body Shop’s recent entry into administration demonstrates.

In the unfortunate event that a franchisor or franchisee becomes insolvent, disruption is inevitable. However, insolvency doesn’t necessarily spell a terminal outcome. In this article we consider some of the key considerations for both franchisors and franchisees.

Handling franchisee insolvency: the franchisor’s approach

Summary

In the first appeal of a restructuring plan under Part 26A Companies Act 2006, the English Court of Appeal unanimously set aside the first instance decision sanctioning the plan proposed by AGPS BondCo PLC, part of the Adler real estate group¹.