Rise in FRC investigations

Whilst there is evidence that, especially in the retail market, the number of store closures and resulting empty units is at its lowest level since a peak in 2012, high profile announcements such as that of BHS mean that they are still a reality. The Court has, with this decision, provided a timely reminder of the principles of surrender by operation of law of which landlords, tenants and guarantors should be mindful.

Summary 

Having successfully obtained judgment for your client in a case where your firm of solicitors is acting under a conditional fee agreement (CFA), it is only natural that thoughts will turn to the firm’s own impending financial reward. But the terms of a CFA, negotiated at the outset of the case, can prove to be a barrier to their underlying commercial purpose: payment by result.

A recent Scottish Inner House decision provides an overview of the approach to be taken in Scotland to interpreting performance bonds. The decision notes that the degree of compliance required when making a call may be strict, or not so strict, depending on the construction of the bond. The court’s decision also refers to the commercial purpose of the bond being key and may suggest that a more lenient approach to performance bonds is to apply in Scotland.

Landlords have no reason to fear Frankenstein’s monster, following the decision of the High Court in EMI Group Limited v O&H Q1 Limited. The court was considering, once again, the anti-avoidance provisions in the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995. Many will be familiar with the effect of the 1995 Act, which ensures that both tenants and their guarantors are released on assignment.

1. Applicable Law

1.1.1 Interim measures in Scotland are governed partly by court procedure rules and partly by statutory provisions. The relevant court procedures are determined by:   

• the nature of the interim measure sought; and
• the court from which the interim measure is sought.

1.1.2 There are two levels of court which may grant interim measures in civil proceedings, namely:   

1 April 2016 will see the insolvency profession fall in line with other civil litigation as the exemption which enabled the recoverability of CFA success fees and After the Event (ATE) insurance premiums from the unsuccessful party to litigation comes to an end. This recoverability was abolished in other civil litigation in April 2013, principally as one of a number of changes intended to control and reduce the costs of civil litigation.

This article contains a useful re-cap of the changes made to SIP 16 and the introduction of a pre-pack pool in November 2015. It also takes an early look at whether the pre-pack pool is working, citing some statistics on “take-up” since the pool’s inception and some examples of pre-packs to connected parties since the pool was introduced.

What is a “pre-pack”?

For all corporate insolvencies starting on or after 6 April 2016 insolvency office-holders are now required to submit a report on the conduct of anyone who was a director of the insolvent company in the 3 years leading up to the insolvency, irrespective of their conduct. Currently, reports are only required where office-holders consider a director’s conduct makes them unfit to be involved in a company’s management in the future.

The Court of Appeal has reiterated some important rules for funders involved in debt purchase. Banking Litigation specialist Alasdair Urwin looks at the recent case of Bibby Factors Northwest v HDF and MCD [1].

Buyer beware

This case concerned a factoring agreement, pursuant to which a funder (Bibby) purchased unpaid invoices from another company (the Assignor), including debts owing from the defendant companies (the Customers).