Litigation – Private & Commercial Litigation Solicitors | Insolvency Legal Advice | https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk James Edward & Associates Fri, 05 Aug 2022 11:37:37 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/cropped-fav-icon-32x32.png Litigation – Private & Commercial Litigation Solicitors | Insolvency Legal Advice | https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk 32 32 30 September 2021 – a Key Date for Insolvency Professionals https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/30-september-2021-a-key-date-for-insolvency-professionals/ https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/30-september-2021-a-key-date-for-insolvency-professionals/#respond Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:55:30 +0000 https://magnifylab-designs.com/?p=1340

Background

As a result of the coronavirus pandemic, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”) received Royal Assent on 25 June 2020. CIGA made a number of substantial changes to existing insolvency legislation. Some of the significant changes (discussed in further detail below) were in relation to the presentation of winding up petitions and statutory demands.

What are the changes?

Schedule 10, paragraph 1 of CIGA provides, insofar as is material, that a statutory demand served between the period of 1 March 2020 – 30 September 2021 cannot provide the basis of a winding up petition when presented against a registered or unregistered company.

Schedule 10, paragraph 2 of CIGA also introduces an additional hurdle for petitioning creditors. In general terms, a petitioning creditor must be able to demonstrate that they have reasonable grounds for believing that:

  1. The debtor company has not been financially affected by the coronavirus pandemic, or;
  2. The debtor company would have been insolvent in any event even if the coronavirus pandemic had not had an effect on the financial affairs of the debtor company.

The above is known as the coronavirus test. Schedule 10, paragraph 3 of CIGA extends the coronavirus test to unregistered companies.

What are the problems?

One particular gap in the legislation is that financial effect is not defined, meaning this will be left to judicial interpretation on a case-by-case basis. Further, although a petitioning creditor must now include confirmation within a winding up petition that the coronavirus test is met, (see schedule 10, paragraph 19 (3) of CIGA) it is difficult to see how, in practice, a petitioning creditor would be able to realistically determine this given it is likely they will be unfamiliar with the debtor company’s financial affairs.

]]>
https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/30-september-2021-a-key-date-for-insolvency-professionals/feed/ 0
Business as Usual (for now) https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/business-as-usual-for-now/ https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/business-as-usual-for-now/#respond Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:38:19 +0000 https://magnifylab-designs.com/?p=1401

Parties should not take for granted that upcoming hearings and or trials will be automatically adjourned given the current COVID 19 pandemic.

The decision of Mr John Kimbell QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the case of Re Blackfriars Limited [2020] EWHC 845 (Ch) highlights the Court’s attempt to keep cases progressing in spite of what goes on elsewhere.

The Application

The current joint liquidators of One Blackfriars Limited (in Liquidation) (“the Company”) made an application pursuant to CPR 3.1(2)(b) to adjourn a five-week trial in June 2020 involving four witnesses and thirteen expert witnesses.

The basis of the liquidators’ claim were damages of approximately £250 million for the alleged mishandling of the administration of the Company by its former administrators.

The basis of the application (opposed by the Defendants who were the former administrators) was on the following four grounds:

  1. To proceed with the trial would be inconsistent with the Prime Minister’s instructions on 23 March 2020 to stay at home;
  2. A remote trial could not proceed without exposing those taking part to an unacceptable risk to their health and safety;
  3. The technological challenges in conducting a remote trial were too great; and
  4. There was potential for unfairness in conducting a remote trial.

The submissions in response in summary were:

  1. Far from being inconsistent with Government instructions, to proceed with the trial would be fully in accordance with both the primary legislation enacted in response to the COVID crisis and specific guidance given to the civil courts, both of which make clear that the appropriate response is to proceed with as many hearings as possible using video and remote technology;
  2. A properly arranged remote trial could proceed without endangering the safety of the individual participants or the public;
  3. The technology to conduct a fully remote trial is already available and has been successfully deployed already in some cases;
  4. Whilst a remote trial will present challenges to all involved, it would not lead to unfairness.
  5. The application was in any event premature because the parties have not yet had an opportunity to explore all of the remote technology options for a trial which, after all, is not scheduled to take place for another ten weeks.

The application to adjourn was refused, despite the Judge being “more than satisfied” that the application was “entirely due to real concerns whether a trial can take place safely and not for tactical reasons”.

The Judge took account of, but was not limited to, the following:

Considering all of the information before him, the Judge had:

“…no hesitation whatsoever in rejecting [the]…submission that to proceed with a remote trial in this case would be inconsistent with the guidance issued by the Prime Minister on the evening of 23 March 2020.”

The Judge found that the legislation and guidance was “…a clear and consistent message” that “as many hearings as possible should continue and they should do so remotely as long as that can be done safely”.

The Judge was aware that as part of flexible case management as indicated under the Protocol regarding Remote Hearings, parties were expected to cooperate to address the challenges and begin preparation earlier than they normally would to ensure that they are equipped to proceed by way of remote communication. The Judge was also mindful that remote trials have gone ahead successfully but “…whilst not underestimating for one moment the technological challenge”, the present case did not warrant an adjournment.

Given the above, where possible, hearings and trials will proceed to be heard remotely. The Court will assess the merits of any application to adjourn and will not accept the current situation as being a sufficient reason alone for an adjournment.

]]>
https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/business-as-usual-for-now/feed/ 0
Using a charging order to recover a debt secured with a personal guarantee https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/using-a-charging-order-to-recover-a-debt-secured-with-a-personal-guarantee/ https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/using-a-charging-order-to-recover-a-debt-secured-with-a-personal-guarantee/#respond Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:25:55 +0000 https://magnifylab-designs.com/?p=1478

If you are owed a debt which has been secured with a personal guarantee (“PG”) and the individual who provided that PG (“the Debtor”) has a beneficial interest in land, securities (for example, stock, dividends and interest in a trust) or has other assets, you may wish to consider imposing a charge over the same. Once a charge is in place, you can then seek an order for sale which would achieve a realisation of funds.

This method is most effective where there is substantial equity in land and the Debtor is the sole owner. Of course, we would not recommend pursuing a charging order and subsequently an order for sale if any relevant property did not have sufficient equity or if numerous individuals had an interest in the same. It is therefore important to consider the state of the Debtor’s resources before seeking a charging order.

By carrying out an official copy entry search you will be able to ascertain whether the Debtor is the legal owner of the property and discover whether there are any pre-existing charges on the title which will have priority over your potential charge, such as a mortgage. 

An application for a charging order has two stages: (1) an interim order; and (2) a final order. The interim order is usually made without a court hearing. Once made, you can register the same with the Land Registry which will stop the Debtor from selling any property without your knowledge. Depending on the information provided in your application, the court may decide that a full hearing ought to take place in order to make the interim order final. If and when an interim order is made final, you will need to update the Land Registry.

If you require any advice in relation to obtaining a charging order in relation a debt you are owed, please do not hesitate to call our specialist dispute resolution team on +44 7441912822 or alternatively, contact us here

]]>
https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/using-a-charging-order-to-recover-a-debt-secured-with-a-personal-guarantee/feed/ 0
Commercial Debt Recovery: Pre-Action Protocols and Conduct https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/commercial-debt-recovery-pre-action-protocols-and-conduct/ https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/commercial-debt-recovery-pre-action-protocols-and-conduct/#respond Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:23:08 +0000 https://magnifylab-designs.com/?p=1499

The court will expect the creditor to have sent out a Letter Before Claim to the debtor, which would set out the basis of their claim and allow a reasonable amount of time for the debtor to fully respond. For straight-forward cases, it is expected that a response should be received within a period of around 14 days for companies or 30 days for individuals, although this can be extended if the matter is more complex.

As the parties will have set out the basis of the claim and the defence in response, they will be better placed to understand where their differences lie. Upon understanding the points in dispute, the parties are able to discuss those points in further details and to narrow down the issues in the hope of reaching an amicable settlement.

During the pre-action stage, the parties should consider whether they would be agreeable to settle the potential claim by entering into a payment plan, which could potentially preserve a business relationship that may otherwise be lost if legal proceedings were issued. Although a claimant may see a payment plan as a delay to getting paid, there is no guarantee that legal proceedings be any quicker in achieving the desired outcome. 

Should the parties not be able to settle following the initial correspondence and communication, they should consider whether alternative dispute resolution (ADR) would be an appropriate next step, as the court insists on litigation being used by the parties as a last resort. Such ADR could include mediation, in which the parties would attempt to resolve their differences with the assistance of an independent mediator.

The pre-action stage will also provide the parties with an opportunity to consider whether expert evidence would be of any value, particularly in relation to the points in dispute. 

The court expects the parties to have complied with these protocols and, if any party has unreasonably not complied, there could even be consequences in relation to costs. Should a party have not complied with the protocols without good reason, their conduct may be referred to the court by the other party when dealing with the issue of costs in those proceedings. An example of a party’s non-compliance of the protocols could be their unreasonable rejection of the other party’s offer of mediation, which could have led to the parties resolving the claim without unnecessarily utilising the courts time and incurring costs.

If you are owed money and are considering legal proceedings, you should make every effort to ensure that you have complied with the CPR, including the Pre-Action Protocols and Conduct. Given the potential costs penalties that could be imposed on you by the court for non-compliance, you may wish to seek independent legal advice and assistance before deciding to take the step of issuing a claim.

How We Can help

Our solicitors based in London have over 90 years’ experience in providing specialist legal advice on commercial debt recovery and litigation.

Based in the heart of legal London, just a stone’s throw away to the Royal Courts of Justice, the Employment Appeal’s Tribunal and Inns of Court.

Make an Enquiry Now

For more information please call us on +44 7441912822, complete a Free Online Enquiry or email info@jamesedwardassociates.com and one of our lawyers will contact you.

]]>
https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/commercial-debt-recovery-pre-action-protocols-and-conduct/feed/ 0
The Risks of Presenting D.I.Y Petitions https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/the-risks-of-presenting-d-i-y-petitions/ https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/the-risks-of-presenting-d-i-y-petitions/#respond Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:16:06 +0000 https://magnifylab-designs.com/?p=1543

Calling all creditors! Whilst you might think the procedure for presenting a petition against a debtor is simple, it seems that the English Legal System is keeping you on your toes!

The Risks of Presenting D.I.Y Petitions

Recently we have had an influx of creditor client’s approaching us to assist them with the amending and filing of bankruptcy and/or winding up petitions (“WUP”) against debtors that they have prepared themselves and presented at court.  If the court finds an error in the petition, depending on the materiality of the error, the court may:

  • Waive the error, making any necessary amendments to ensure that the winding-up order is drawn up correctly;
  • Grant permission to amend the petition (possibly requiring the petitioner to re-serve the amended petition or give notice again) and adjourn the hearing of the petition in the meantime;
  • Dismiss or refer the petition.

If you have made an error in the petition you are entirely in the court’s hands in respect of how that error will affect the insolvency proceedings going forward.  When exercising their discretion, the court will take into account risk that the error has prejudiced other parties (for example, an incorrect name may have prevented creditors from knowing which company the winding-up hearing was in respect of).

Relatively common errors include errors in respect of the registered address of the company. Such minor errors will usually be waived or amended at the hearing. However, should the court think the error is sufficient to require the petition to be re-served or notice in the gazette to be provided again, at this stage, there is a fair bit of work to do to get the petition back on track, not to mention the additional costs that you will incur in dealing with the additional requirements set by the court.

An example of such an error can be where a creditor states that a debtor company is an undertaking within Article 1.2 of the EU Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings when it isn’t (i.e. (m) on the current COMP 1 Form). This is a fundamental mistake that has legal ramifications that the creditor may not have considered. In this instance, we were able to step in and obtain an adjournment of the petition hearing to amend the petition, re-serve the amended petition and give notice again in the Gazette.

Often a creditors main aim is to recover monies from debtors as quickly as possible and at as little costs as possible. Unfortunately, instructing a solicitor to help you amend and re-serve petitions is often more costly than if the solicitor had prepared and presented the petition for you initially plus it save you an awful lot of stress!

Please contact us on 0207 467 3980 and speak to a member of insolvency team now – it might be that your case will qualify for and can undertake on our fixed fee basis. Alternatively email us with your query at info@jamesedwardassociates.com and we will be sure to call you back straightaway at a time convenient for you. All communications will, of course, be dealt with in the strictest of confidence.

]]>
https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/the-risks-of-presenting-d-i-y-petitions/feed/ 0
New Guidance from Civil Justice Council – Instructing Expert Witnesses https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/new-guidance-from-civil-justice-council-instructing-expert-witnesses/ https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/new-guidance-from-civil-justice-council-instructing-expert-witnesses/#respond Tue, 16 Nov 2021 09:48:14 +0000 https://magnifylab-designs.com/?p=1539

Since 1 December 2014, new guidance on the instruction of experts in civil claims has been implemented.  The new guidance highlights the existing requirements concerning expert duties under CPR 35 and PD 35 and reinforces the underlying requirement of independence.

The new guidance reflects the Jackson reforms which were introduced in April 2013. The full guidance can be located here but several key provisions are outlined below:

The new document titled “Guidance for the Instruction of Experts in Civil Claims 2014” replaces the “Protocol for the Instruction of Experts to give Evidence in Civil Claims” which was annexed to PD 35. The new Guidance is now included by way of a website address at paragraph 1 of PD 35.

The new guidance highlights that the terms of an expert’s appointment should include a provision that the court has the power to limit the costs paid towards the expert’s fees and expenses. Although, where a party appoints their own expert in addition to a single joint expert, the new Guidance explains that the cost of such an expert will not be recoverable from another party.

An expert’s report must contain a statement that he or she is aware of and has complied with the requirements of CPR 35, PD 35 and the new guidance.

Before filing and serving an expert report, parties are now required to check that any witness statements and other expert reports relied upon by the expert are the final served versions.

In accordance with the principles of independence and objectivity, experts should not be asked to “amend, expand or alter any parts of reports in a manner which distorts their true opinion but may be invited to do so to ensure accuracy, clarity, internal consistency, completeness and relevance to the issues.  However, once an experts’ Without Prejudice meeting has been held, it is permissible for an expert to change their mind and later amend their report.

The new guidance features the court’s power to order “hot-tubbing” which has been effective since April 2013. “Hot-tubbing” is a method of giving evidence when experts of like disciplines give evidence at trial simultaneously, rather than sequentially, and the court chairs a discussion between them.

Experts should be aware that sanctions might apply for non-compliance with CPR 35 and PD 35. In more extreme cases, an expert could face contempt of court leading to a fine or imprisonment.

]]>
https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/new-guidance-from-civil-justice-council-instructing-expert-witnesses/feed/ 0
PFI Test Case Provides Guidance on Limited Partners Liability https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/pfi-test-case-provides-guidance-on-limited-partners-liability/ https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/pfi-test-case-provides-guidance-on-limited-partners-liability/#respond Tue, 16 Nov 2021 09:16:55 +0000 https://magnifylab-designs.com/?p=1422

The recent decision in Certain Limited Partners In Henderson PFI Secondary Fund II LLP (A Firm) v (1) Henderson PFI Secondary Fund II LLP (A Firm) and others [2012] EWHC 3259 (Comm) provides guidance on the liability of a Limited Partner (“LP”Â) of an English Limited Partnership.

The case in question involved the LPs of 22 pension schemes and investment funds suing Henderson PFI Secondary Fund II alleging a breach of mandate.

Background

English Limited Partnerships are frequently used as an investment vehicle by fund managers and favoured by investors due to their flexibility, tax efficient structure and the limited liability protection afforded to LP investors.

Limited Partnerships are similar to conventional partnerships however as well as having one or more General Partners (“GPs”Â) responsible for the management of the partnership there are also one or more LPs.

GPs share similar responsibilities and powers as partners in a conventional firm including personal liability for the liabilities of the firm.

LPs responsibilities and powers resemble corporate shareholders in that their liability is limited to their investment and do not normally have any management authority. The GPs pay the LPs a return on their investment in accordance with the partnership agreement.

Grey area

The difficulties with Limited Partnerships lie in the unclear scope of restrictions placed upon an LP’Âs ability to get involved in the management of the partnership.

Section 6(i) of the Limited Partnership Act 1907 states:

“(1)A limited partner shall not take part in the management of the partnership business, and shall not have power to bind the firm:

Provided that a limited partner may by himself or his agent at any time inspect the books of the firm and examine into the state and prospects of the partnership business, and may advise with the partners thereon.

If a limited partner takes part in the management of the partnership business he shall be liable for all debts and obligations of the firm incurred while he so takes part in the management as though he were a general partner.”

Issues

It is common practice for GPs to delegate fund management duties to a fund manager, in this case a sister company of the GP, Henderson Equity Partners Limited (“the Fund Manager”).

The LP investors alleged that they were led to believe that they were investing solely in private finance initiative (“PFI”Â) projects.

The Fund Manager instead invested into Laing Plc, a construction and project management company. The PFI fund subsequently fell in value by two thirds during the 2007-2008 economic downturn.

The LPs alleged that the purchase of Laing Plc was in breach of the fund’Âs mandate.

As the GP and Fund Manager were connected and the fact that the GP would not likely sue the Fund Manager the LPs sought to bring a derivative action in the name of the partnership against both the GP and the Fund Manager.

The court had to decide on the construction of the documents and also whether bringing a derivative action would amount to management activity and expose the LPs to the full liabilities of the partnership.

Mr Justice Cooke decided that the GP and Fund Manager had not breached the investment criteria however his judgment also provided insight into and a clearer demarcation of what would amount to management activities and in particular:

1.) The LP’s were entitled to pursue the derivative claim against the Fund Manager however so long as they pursued their claims in the name of the partnership they must forfeit their limited liability status;

2.) The LP’Âs were not entitled to pursue a derivative claim against the GP. They could pursue the GP as individual LPs but not in the name of the partnership. It was held that the limited partnership agreement governed claims by the LPs against the GP and the court would approach such claims as ordinary partnership disputes. Enforcement of these rights would not fall under management of partnership business;

3.) On what activities would constitute management the court affirmed the statements made in Inversiones Frieira SL v Colyzeo Investors I and II LP [2012] Bus LR 1136 which made reference to the qualifying provision in Section 6(i) as stated above in that the LPs can inspect the books, examine and advise the partners. Such activity would not constitute participation or management. An LP that analyses and discusses this information with other LPs does not become involved in the management of the partnership however participation in the decision making process and commenting on operational business decisions taken by the GP will be deemed as involvement in management activities. Conducting litigation was not partnership management;

4.) The court held in favour of the GP and Fund Manager in that they had not breached the investment criteria after having scrutinised the Limited Partnership Agreement and Management Deed.

Conclusion

Although the LPs did not succeed in this instance this decision shows that LPs can bring an action against the Fund Manager and demarcates the point at which an LP will lose its limited liability protection.

James Edward & Associates has experienced Commercial Litigation and Insolvency solicitors. If you have any issues you wish to discuss please contact us on 02074 673980.

Disclaimer

The information and any commentary on the law contained in this article is provided free of charge for information purposes only.

No responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member or employee of James Edward & Associates. The information and commentary does not and is not intended to amount to legal advice and is not intended to be relied upon.

You are strongly advised to obtain advice from a Solicitor about your specific case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments in this article.

]]>
https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/pfi-test-case-provides-guidance-on-limited-partners-liability/feed/ 0
Funding Insolvency Claims – James Edward & Associates Runs Seminars https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/funding-insolvency-claims-summit-law-llp-runs-seminars/ https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/funding-insolvency-claims-summit-law-llp-runs-seminars/#respond Tue, 16 Nov 2021 09:13:37 +0000 https://magnifylab-designs.com/?p=1411

In light of the Lord Jackson reforms, we are running a limited number of seminars on insolvency litigation funding.

If you are interested in arranging a seminar at your offices in London, please email info@jamesedwardassociates.com or contact Tanya Seevaratnam 

]]>
https://www.summitlawllp.co.uk/funding-insolvency-claims-summit-law-llp-runs-seminars/feed/ 0