On 30 September 2016, the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) published its finding that two companies involved in the online retail of licensed sport and entertainment posters and frames had breached the Competition Act 1998 (“CA98”) by entering into agreements (or, at least, ‘concerted practices’) to artificially inflate the prices charged for certain products. A formal charge was accepted by the main protagonist, Trod Limited (in administration) (“Trod”) and fines imposed, which became payable by Trod’s administrators as of 13 October 2016.
Judges from 10 jurisdictions met in October 2016 in Singapore for the inaugural Judicial Insolvency Network Conference.
High on the agenda of the esteemed conference participants was the preparation of Draft Guidelines to provide practical assistance for Judges and insolvency practitioners alike in dealing with difficult issues which cross-border insolvencies and restructurings commonly face.
Horton v Henry: Pensions clarified
We previously discussed the uncertainty surrounding the treatment of pensions in a bankruptcy which arose from two conflicting high court decisions: Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch) and Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch).
In Hinton v Wotherspoon [2016] EWHC 623 (CH) (where this firm successfully represented the trustee in bankruptcy, Lloyd Hinton of Insolve Plus Limited), the court commented that the approach in Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch) was “plainly correct”.
Since The Insolvency Act 2003 (the Act) was enacted, there has been some confusion as to whether it provided a basis for liquidators to draw fees on account before having formal approval from either a creditors' committee or the Court. On 20 September 2016, the BVI Commercial Court clarified the position and specifically provided that newly appointed liquidators could draw payments of up to 80% on account of their reasonable remuneration and expenses on an interim basis without the need to obtain prior approval from the creditors' committee or the Court.
JPLs play an unheralded but crucial mediating role in Bermuda
This is a short guide to solvent voluntary liquidations of companies incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. It is not intended as a substitute for full legal advice but more as an aide memoire to the procedures involved.
1. Why is the company being put into solvent voluntary liquidation/being "wound up"?
A BVI company generally has no limit on its duration. However, like all good things, a company may come to the end of its useful life. This may be because the assets it held have been transferred out or sold.
Bailey v Angove’s Pty Ltd [2016] UKSC Civ 47
SUMMARY
The Supreme Court in this case had to consider whether an agent’s authority to accept payments had been ended by the principal’s termination of the agency agreement or if the agent’s authority was irrevocable in spite of the termination notice and permitted the agent to receive remaining payments due from customers for goods supplied during the term of the agreement.
BACKGROUND
FACTS:
InHinton v Wotherspoon [2016] EWHC 623 (CH), Jason Freedman and Aziz Abdul successfully secured an Income Payments Order (“IPO”) on behalf of the Trustee in Bankruptcy.
The court also provided useful guidance on the correct position where a bankrupt has made an election to draw down from his private pension but not given specific instructions as to application of the funds.
LEGAL BACKGROUND:
Padwick Properties Limited v Punj Lloyd Limited [2016] EWHC 502 (Ch)
FACTS
This case concerned a property in Stockport let at an annual rent of £784,268, where Padwick was landlord to a company named SCL. The defendant had guaranteed SCL's performance of its obligations.
I HAVE REQUESTED MY LANDLORD’S CONSENT TO SELL MY PHARMACY LEASE. THE LANDLORD HAS AGREED TO THE SALE BUT ON THE CONDITION THAT I AM A GUARANTOR FOR THE BUYER. IS THIS A REQUIREMENT UNDER MY LEASE?
The answer will depend on the terms of your lease. However, as a general rule, it is likely to be the case that the landlord can request such a guarantee.