Winding-up petitions are being used increasingly in the construction industry as a means of recovering unpaid debts. It is the ‘nuclear’ recovery option because the consequences for the recipient company can be catastrophic (both for its reputation and financially). So when responding to a winding-up petition, time is very much of the essence.

To secure an order for the #winding-up of a Quasi-Partnership company on the Just& Equitable ground, is it necessary only to show that mutual trust and confidence between the shareholders/quasi-partners has broken down? Hardwicke investigates the recent case of Badyal v Badyal & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1644

Background

Dealing with pensions in insolvency can be challenging for insolvency practitioners (“IPs”) and the Pension Scheme Bill (“Bill”) presents another.

Whilst a prudent insolvent practitioner should not be unduly alarmed, s114 of the Bill inserts a new section 80B into the Pensions Act 2004 which gives the Pensions Regulator (tPR) power to issue insolvency practitioners with a fine of up to £1 million.

A significant amount, and payable personally!

Shail Patel acted for the successful defendants at trial in Bank of Baroda v Maniar [2019] EWHC 2463 Comm, in resisting claims by the bank on personal guarantees. The case raised a number of important points of European cross border insolvency law under the European Insolvency Regulation, and the English Court’s exercise of a foreign law judicial power.

[2019] EWHC 2651 (TCC)

2018 was seen by many as the ‘year of the CVA’ and the year of the so -called ‘Retail CVA’ in particular. Such CVAs have been used in an attempt by companies operating in the retail and casual dining sector with burdensome leases to reduce the cost of their premises whilst continuing to trade.

2019 was widely expected to be the year in which there was a challenge by a landlord under s.6 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (‘the Act’) to the use of CVAs to force a rent reduction, without comparable cuts to other creditors and so it has proved.

Summary

Case:Pantiles Investments Ltd & Anor v Winckler [2019] EWHC 1298 (Ch)(23 May 2019)

Five Elements for Chinese Companies trading with UK counterparts Part 1: Gold

中英企业交易中的“五行”元素——第一部分：金

在与向英国供货的国际公司合作的过程中，我们发现了一些常见问题。本系列五篇文章围绕“五行”的各个元素展开探讨，指出了供应商在和英国客户做生意过程中面临的关键风险，以及供应商如何才能最好地保护自己，从而确保其商务活动和商业关系的和谐。第一个元素“金”确保供应商得到应得的货款，避免或尽量减少风险、困难和难以解决的困境。

金：及时获得全额付款，让您的业务和商业关系发展壮大

在协助我们的国际贸易客户处理的各种事项中，最常见的是追款。因此，我们建议所有供应商在签订合同或根据标准商业条款向客户供货时，确保在客户违约的情况下尽可能让自己处于最有利的境地。

对供应商而言，最有利的索赔是财产索赔。根据所有权保留条款，在客户未付清货款前，供应商仍对交付给客户的货物拥有所有权。如果客户破产，供应商有权收回货物（或收取货款）。

其他合同保护措施包括：

According to the recent case of Sell Your Car With Us Ltd v Sareen [2019] – yes, they are.

Historically the courts have looked dimly on the use of insolvency proceedings as a method of debt collection. For this reason, where an individual or company appears to have the means to pay a debt but apparently refuses to do so, the courts have implied that the only proper legal recourse is through litigation. In this case, the judge explained why she considers this submission to have been taken too far.

Background