The context - validity of appointment of administrators
The appointment of administrators under a charge prevents a company’s directors from exercising any management powers without the administrator’s consent.
However, the charge must be enforceable at the time of the administrators’ appointment. What happens if the directors dispute that the charge was enforceable? Are they prevented from controlling the company to reject the appointment.
The background
IPs are always on guard for potential conversion claims - but what happens when no title can be established? Euromex clarifies the whole mess.
The background
Whenever there is an apparent monetary debt, common practice is for a claimant to threaten a winding up petition as part of the tactics to get a potential defendant to pay up. Three weeks after a statutory demand letter is sent where an apparent debt for £750 or more exists, a winding up petition can be issued against a company which has not paid (the actual financial wellbeing of the payer is irrelevant as long as they have not paid). Whenever an apparent debt is in dispute this can be a powerful tool to unsettle a defendant.
When a franchisee files for bankruptcy, a franchisor naturally has concerns over how the process will affect the parties’ relationship. Of particular concern is the possibility that the franchisor will be forced into a relationship with an unacceptable successor as a result of a bankruptcy judge’s decision to authorize assumption and assignment of the franchise agreement over the franchisor’s objection.
Following insolvency, creditors and the (now insolvent) company can claim back losses from directors who breached their duties prior to the business breaking down. But it is not just formal directors – it is any individuals who actually control the company and have made themselves ‘shadow directors’ by doing so. In this way, creditors can recoup funds to meet the company’s debts from the individual directors who caused the loss of such funds.
The High Court has confirmed that all rights relating to the control of data belonging to, or being controlled by, a company at the time it entered into liquidation remain vested in the company at and following its liquidation. Liquidators are therefore not personally liable for compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 in respect of this data as they will be viewed as agents acting for the company rather than as 'data controllers'.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas has held that underlying claims that the insureds misused investment funds intended for the purchase of nonperforming mortgages did not allege negligent acts, errors, or omissions in performing “mortgage broker services” within the policy’s definition of “Insured Services.” Axis Surplus Ins. Co. v. Halo Asset Mgmt., LLC, 2013 WL 5416268 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2013).
The economic impact of forced budget cuts from the sequester and other government funding crises—ranging from a government shutdown to the federal debt limit—and congressional gridlock place disproportionate pressure on smaller- or second tier-government contractors. Business partners of a financially infirm contractor must prepare for when a contract business partner, co-venturer, or teaming partner falls over the fiscal cliff and files for bankruptcy protection. In this article, we will provide an over
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, applying Oklahoma law, has held that a bankruptcy or insolvency exclusion may bar coverage for the insured broker’s claim, where the broker’s actions were connected to the bankruptcy of its client’s former insurer. C.L. Frates & Co. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 2013 WL 4734093 (10th Cir. Sept. 4, 2013).