A major consideration for any Claimant in an action seeking monetary damages is whether the Defendant to an action has the assets to meet a judgment, whether that be a claim against an individual or a limited company backed by the personal guarantee of an individual. That consideration should extend to a scenario where the Defendant has a judgment made against them and then either refuses to pay or cannot pay on time. The Claimant may have to seek their bankruptcy to achieve some payment.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2015/3721.html

Two insurance intermediaries entered into administration. Although heavily insolvent, they had significant funds held in client accounts. Those funds represented insurance premiums collected from customers but not yet paid on to the insurers. The issue therefore arose as to whether the insurers, the customers or the unsecured creditors of the intermediaries were entitled to those funds.

Summary

From 1 January 2016, deposits made by private individuals and small businesses to any authorised firms are protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to a limit of £75,000 (previously £85,000).

Last year, the Ministry of Justice published its statistics for judicial and court activity in England and Wales for 2014. In this note, we take a look at the 2014 figures and highlight emerging litigation trends.

Our own enquiries into professional negligence claims for the first three quarters of 2015 show that claims numbers are likely to be broadly similar to those for 2014 and 2013. We intend to follow this note with an update after the Ministry of Justice publishes its own figures for the whole of 2015 later this year.

Unless you have been living in a cave, you will have heard the very disappointing news that the current exemption to the Jackson reforms for insolvency claims under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (“LASPO”) will cease as of 1 April 2016.

If you are to avail yourself of the benefits of the Jackson exemption, which was one of the few pieces of legislation that levelled out the playing field between Insolvency Practitioners (“IPs”) and rogue directors – then read on.

The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2015 (SI 2015/1819) which comes into force on 16 November 2015 is set to change the landscape on how creditors pursue debts.

The cost of presenting a bankruptcy or winding up petition will increase for petitions presented on or after 16 November 2015.  This is not welcome news to many creditors as the increase may result in smaller debts being harder to recover, forcing more claims to be issued through the Small Claims Court which can often be a lengthy process and not always cost effective.

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) levy Determination for 2016/17 was published on 17 December 2015. It follows a consultation with PPF stakeholders which was launched in September this year. The levy Determination sets out the rules for calculating a scheme’s annual PPF levy. In our September Update we reported on the key changes which were being proposed as part of the 2016/17 consultation process.    

Nearly a third (30%) of South West retailers are at heightened risk of insolvency in the next 12 months, according to research by R3, the insolvency trade body. This is an increase of 5.5 percentage points  on the same time last year.

These figures are higher than the cross-sector percentage of businesses in the South West at higher than normal risk (26.5%). However, it is below the UK average insolvency risk for the retail sector (30.8%).

Alan Bennett, Chair of R3 in the South West and Partner at Ashfords LLP, comments:

The Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) can provide very significant tax relief for investors in unlisted companies but a recent case in the First Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) shows how strictly the rules of the Scheme are interpreted.

One of the many conditions of EIS relief is that the shares issued to the investor must not have any preferential right to a company’s assets on a winding up. The requirement is included so that an investor cannot obtain the tax advantages of EIS relief while being shielded from the economic risk of the investment.

The facts