Welcome to the second article in this amazing series which looks at what you can do to try to extract money from a stubborn business debtor.

In the first article I looked at the potential benefits and detriments of issuing a County Court Claim.  This time I will take a step back and look at what you could do prior to going to Court with your completed forms and a large cheque for the ever-growing Court fee. You can read this article here.

The Insolvency Service recently published official statistics showing that the number of individual insolvencies in 2015 fell to the lowest annual level for a decade (by 19% to 79,965).

The statistics also show that:

Key point

An assignee of future debts was bound by discounting and rebate arrangements concluded between the assignor and its customers despite having given notice of the assignment.

The facts

M supplied goods to customers. It factored its debts to Bibby in 2000. The Factoring Agreement provided that all future debts due to M by customers were to vest upon their creation in Bibby.

Bibby did the following to try and protect its position – ultimately the steps proved unsuccessful:

Key Point

The word “advance” does not automatically imply an obligation to repay the funds advanced, nor does it automatically imply a repayment trigger.

The Facts

So-called “Creditor Portals”, and other similarly titled electronic platforms by which insolvency practitioners typically circulate any meaningful information to creditors about insolvent estates, have been a bugbear of mine ever since they were first used a little while ago. Don’t get me wrong; I absolutely applaud the attempt which they represent to minimise the amount of unnecessary paperwork circulating around the country and the savings of cost which they bring to the administration of insolvent estates where the cost of copying and posting alone would be absolutely frightening today.

When a company is facing financial difficulties, the Directors of that company should be aware to the procedures that must be followed in relation to redundancies in order to avoid prosecution.

A balanced view A quarterly update from our Real Estate Dispute Resolution team Winter/ Spring 2015/2016 Real Estate Dispute Resolution Issue 12 Contents Welcome to the Winter 2015/2016 edition of Eversheds In Focus. Since our Autumn 2015 edition, the Courts have considered a number of important cases on issues ranging from break options, the legitimacy of controversial rates avoidance schemes, relief from forfeiture, specific performance of contractual obligations and what constitutes a penalty payment.

The recent decisions in Re MF Global UK Ltd and Re Omni Trustees Ltd give conflicting views as to whether section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extra-territorial effect. In this article, we look at the reasoning in the two judgments and discuss a possible further argument for extra-territorial effect.

The conflicting rulings on section 236

The duties and obligations of directors in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are drawn from various legislative sources, there is no consolidated legislative framework dealing with the duties and obligations of directors under UAE Law. Note that under UAE law the terms “manager” and “director” are used interchangeably. As such, any reference in this memorandum to the foregoing terms should be construed as one and the same, where possible we have used the generic term “director” to avoid potential confusion.

Applicable Law 

The Privy Council has held that a foreign default judgment can be enforced under the common law where a jurisdiction agreement in favour of that country can be implied or inferred. It is not necessary for there to be an express jurisdiction agreement: Vizcaya Partners Limited v Picard and another (Gibraltar) [2016] UKPC 5.