The recent case of Husky Group Ltd (“Husky”) underlines the importance of following your lawyer’s advice and not pursuing the defense of the indefensible.
Key Points
- Phones 4U went into administration in September 2014.
- Technology companies in the US have also faced a difficult market.
- Phones 4U’s complicated financing structure contributed to its downfall, as did its reliance on one or two key suppliers.
- The Protection of Essential Supplies Order will have considerable ramifications for tech suppliers when it comes into force.
PHONES 4U COLLAPSE: PART 1
The Commission has published its rating system and an advice note to operators on the requirements to segregate customer funds and disclose to customers the level of protection offered in the event of insolvency.
This ratings category must be included in operator’s terms and conditions by 31 December 2014.
Anyone using arbitration clauses should note the Court of Appeal decision made on Monday 8 December, to the effect that a winding up petition is not automatically stayed because the petition debt arises from a contract containing a mandatory arbitration clause.
This important development could assist creditors enforcing strong claims against debtors incorporated in many offshore financial centres as well as in England.
Invoice finance has dominated the lending landscape in 2014 and has outperformed all other types of business lending in the UK. We examine below many issues which may arise in the restructuring of those businesses funded by invoice discounters.
1. Isn’t invoice discounting just a form of finance like any other?
When undergoing a restructuring, a borrower/officeholder's main focus is often the company's lenders. However, there are occasions when HMRC's agreement can be just as key to ensuring any process runs smoothly. In this article, Sonia Jordan and Hayley Çapani discuss some key areas where HMRC's agreement is essential to ensuring a smooth restructuring or insolvency process.
The High Court has recently considered whether to exercise its jurisdiction to hear winding-up petitions brought against two companies incorporated in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
The Facts
The High Court has considered whether a former liquidator should be held liable under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”) for misapplying company monies in excess of half a million pounds.
The Facts
We are hoping to take on new premises that are currently occupied by the administrators of the previous failed tenant. They will not give an indication of when they intend to leave and this is holding up our own plans. Is there anything we can do to force the administrators to tell us when they will vacate the premises?
Moving to new premises is always stressful, and having to wait for an administrator to vacate is only going to compound the matter. This is increasingly common and can take quite some time to resolve.
McKellar v Griffin emphasises the importance for IPs of establishing the COMI of a foreign company before accepting an appointment as administrators.
In McKellar (decided in June 2014) the court, on the application of a foreign liquidator, declared that the administrators’ appointment was invalid because the company’s COMI was not in England and Wales. So where does that leave unfortunate insolvency practitioners in similar situations?