When a company is facing short term financial difficulties the directors or shareholders may decide to make a loan to the company to pay wages. 

Introduction

In this Banking Reform updater we examine the single resolution mechanism (SRM), which together with the single supervisory mechanism (SSM) (Banking Reform updater 10) forms the key pillars of the EU Banking Union.

What is the SRM?

Declining to follow a 2012 decision, the High Court has ruled that a bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which he was entitled within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986, and so did not form part of the bankruptcy estate.

Background

The process of repossession will involve complex issues of fact and law. Each one is different depending upon the jurisdiction involved, the approach of the operator and the attitude of the relevant authorities.

Information and planning

1. What is the risk if a counter-party is located in an exiting member state?

What might be the funding risk?

A member state exit is likely to result in increased liquidity problems and less available funding as financial institutions manage their exposure to the Eurozone. Businesses may find that traditional sources of finance (loans, bonds etc) are less easy to obtain or raise.

Intra group funding may also be problematic if there are intra-company loans to subsidiaries located in risk member states and those subsidiaries are having difficulty meeting their payment obligations under such loans.

Debts claimed in statutory demands must be due and payable to the creditor named in the statutory demand.

When disputing statutory demands it is common for debtor companies to argue an offsetting claim, so as to reduce or extinguish the amount claimed in the statutory demand.

For there to be a valid offsetting claim there must be ‘mutuality’, meaning that the legal capacities in which both the offsetting claim and the statutory demand debt are each claimed and owed must align.

A recent Victorian case has worrying implications for financiers and creditors.

A decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Vasudevan v Becon Constructions (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 14 has the potential to significantly broaden the power of a liquidator to attack a company transaction under section 588FDA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) where there are ‘indirect benefits’ to a director or close associate of a director of the company.

Again, of interest to all schemes providing defined benefits is the recent settlement in the litigation involving the Lehman Brothers Scheme, where the payment of £184 million, representing costs of the buying-out benefits, has been agreed.

Following a detailed investigation by TPR commencing in 2008, and a legal battle through the hierarchy of courts up to the Supreme Court (SC), members of the Lehman Brothers Pension Scheme will receive their full benefits after a settlement was reached on 18 August 2014.

Obtain advice before you lodge a proof of debt or vote in a liquidation

Secured creditors should remember that submitting a proof of debt and voting in a liquidation may result in the loss of their security if they get it wrong.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales has delivered a timely reminder to secured creditors of a company in liquidation, where the secured creditor lost its security because it submitted a proof of debt for the full amount of its debt and voted on a poll at a creditor’s meeting for its full debt.