As highlighted by the 2008-2009 crisis, the insolvency of sub-suppliers raises important challenges. Automotive parts suppliers may need to find an alternative sub-supplier at short notice or may have to take over the production of certain parts themselves, which often requires a recovery of the tools that were provided to the sub-supplier. Both scenarios raise difficult legal issues.
The demise of the ARP after 30 September 2013 and the prospect of new entrants to the solicitors’ professional indemnity market creates the possibility of more incidences of insurer insolvency. We look at the consequences for firms insured by those insurers.
No financial stability requirement for qualifying insurers
Over recent years in this economic climate, it has been increasingly common for distressed companies to be sold in an effort to rescue the entity. On first blush, this seems a relatively simple exercise although care is required to ensure that no unexpected tax charges arise, especially if there is restructuring of the debt. The taxation rules governing the end of business life are varied and complex and the sooner that thought is given to taxation in respect of the insolvent company the better this will be for the seller, the remaining group and for any buyer.
The government has clarified which claims will benefit from the continued recoverability of CFA success fees and ATE insurance premiums, following its announcement in May last year that there would be a two-year delay to implementation of this aspect of the Jackson reforms for “insolvency proceedings” (see post).
Frost & Sullivan has recently predicted that 4% of all sales (the equivalent of 4.5million units) of new cars will be online purchases by 2020. This compares to 5,000 new cars sold solely online in 2011. An implication of this, should they wish to avoid a similar fate to the likes of HMV, Jessops and Blockbuster, is that car retailers are going to have to make adjustments to their selling processes in order to avoid showrooms becoming mere browsing opportunities for customers to pick and chose but purchase online.
Although only a few weeks old, 2013 has already seen HMV, Jessops and Blockbuster enter administration, joining last year's failures, which included Comet, Clinton Cards and Peacocks. Given the number of premises these companies occupy across the UK, landlords of retail premises will inevitably be affected.
On 7 January 2013, the Regulator published a report detailing its decision to give clearance to entities in the UK Coal Group to pursue a restructuring plan agreed on by UK Coal's shareholders in November 2012.
A High Court judgment by Mr. Justice Richards handed down on January 29 has confirmed that a client’s open positions on trades, made with a firm regulated by the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) that subsequently enters into an administration or liquidation, should be valued by reference to the market value of the trades at the time of the firm’s failure rather than at the date the positions are closed out.
A couple of myths dispelled…..
”It’s the company’s problem, not mine.”
Wrong: It’s a surprisingly common misconception that because your business is contained in a limited company, its demise will not affect you. This is simply not correct.
“I work for the shareholders, not the creditors”
This morning we got the news that HMV had gone into administration and last week it was Jessop that went under. HMV’s administrators are still trading from the stores but the administrators of Jessops have ceased trading. Can their landlords expect their rent?