Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
It is frustrating enough when a company owing you money becomes insolvent, still more so when the amount for which you can vote is restricted when deciding whether or not a company’s proposals should be approved.
The treatment of a claim was recently considered in proceedings brought by HMRC against the administrators of Mercury Tax Group Ltd where the court gave some helpful guidance on how to deal with unliquidated and unascertained claims for voting purposes. Ascertained claims (usually debts) must be allowed in whole for voting purposes and marked objected too, even if they are disputed. These claims can be contrasted with unascertained claims where the insolvency practitioner estimates a minimum value for voting purposes. This judgment emphasises the point that creditors are better off arguing that their claim is ascertained (even if it is disputed in full) as their vote could make all the difference in whether proposals are approved.
Two recent judgments demonstrate the risk that directors (of insolvent companies) face of being personally liable if appropriate records and procedures are not followed and if it cannot be shown that certain payments were in the interests of the company.
View blog
To operate lawfully, firms that broker credit to consumers by way of business must be registered with and authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
On 16 July 2019 the Serious Fraud Office released details of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement reached with Sarclad Ltd in July 2016.
The FCA are encouraged to find that the implementation of the new rules has encouraged financial institutions to manage whistleblowing cases and concerns fairly, consistently and in a manner that protects the individual whistleblower.
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up