Business lending shrank for the fifth month running, a new report from the Bank of England has revealed.
According to the Bank's latest Trends in Lending report, net business loan repayments in July were £2.5 billion. The figure was an improvement on the £3.2 billion recorded in June, but the Bank said that lending by the UK's major credit providers has stayed moderate in August.
The picture is not uniform. Credit conditions for larger companies were showing signs of easing, but smaller businesses were still struggling to secure finance.
Although many firms have been seeking to pay down debts in the aftermath of the recession, smaller enterprises have fewer funding options open to them than their larger counterparts.
The report said: "Contacts of the Bank's network of agents noted that while credit conditions were easing for larger businesses, they remained tight for smaller firms."
New lending facilities for SMEs have remained unchanged over recent months.Despite the £200 billion of quantitative easing with which the Bank of England has been priming the economy, the broad money supply declined by 0.2 per cent in August compared with the previous month. The annual rate of growth in money was down by 1.8 per cent.
It had been hoped the quantitative easing programme would make more funds available for credit-starved small businesses.
One analyst, Howard Archer of HIS Global Insight, argued that the case was strengthening for a return to quantitative easing. He said that the Trends in Lending survey highlighted concerns that tight credit conditions are still posing a significant obstacle to economic activity, even when subdued demand for credit among businesses was taken into account.
Wednesday 22 September 2010
Over half of British SME's are not expecting government help over late payment issues
New research from Bacs, the organisation behind Bacs Direct Credit, has revealed that over half of British SMEs (56%) do not anticipate any assistance from the Government in tackling the late payments issue, and that the number of companies feeling the impact of late payments in June 2010 has fallen by a massive 20% in just six months.
Mike Hutchinson, head of marketing at Bacs, believes this is largely due to the individual companies' efforts and says: "It's extremely heartening to see that there are now many companies making great strides to help themselves beat the late payments cycle, by sharpening up their billing and credit control procedures."
However, there are still a massive 769,000 companies effected by late payments and Bacs' research shows that the total amount of money owed to these companies is now nearly a third more (28%) than it was six months ago (£25,000 December 2009 compared with £32,000 in June 2010), with a massive £24.6bn in total now owed to businesses across Britain.
Hutchinson continues: "There is valuable help and advice available, through schemes like the Prompt Payment Code, for companies still suffering from late payments and SMEs will be well served to draw on all available resources to find new routes forward.
"For example, with many SMEs still highly dependent on cheques, a specific piece of advice from Hutchinson is for companies to consider adopting automated payments methods. Bacs' research shows that 79% of SMEs still use cheques to pay bills and, with cheque clearing facilities due to be phased out by 2018, Hutchinson says: "SMEs should consider replacing the use of cheques with automated payment methods sooner rather than later. Automated payments offer many benefits in streamlining processes and helping cash flow, which companies can take advantage of now to help combat late payments.
"For more information about late payments and how to tackle them head on, visit www.paymedirect.co.uk where Bacs has developed a series of hints and tips for encouraging prompt payment.
About the researchBacs conducted independent market research with business to business specialists BDRC Continental. In June 2010, we conducted 477 telephone interviews with FDs, MDs, and owners of GB SMEs. The sample was representative of the GB SME audience and was representatively divided as follows, North = 126 interviews; Midlands = 107; South = 244; Manufacturing sector = 136; Distribution sector = 179; Services sector = 162.About Bacs:Founded in 1968, Bacs, the not-for-profit, membership-based industry body is owned by 15 of the leading banks and building societies in the UK and Europe.
Mike Hutchinson, head of marketing at Bacs, believes this is largely due to the individual companies' efforts and says: "It's extremely heartening to see that there are now many companies making great strides to help themselves beat the late payments cycle, by sharpening up their billing and credit control procedures."
However, there are still a massive 769,000 companies effected by late payments and Bacs' research shows that the total amount of money owed to these companies is now nearly a third more (28%) than it was six months ago (£25,000 December 2009 compared with £32,000 in June 2010), with a massive £24.6bn in total now owed to businesses across Britain.
Hutchinson continues: "There is valuable help and advice available, through schemes like the Prompt Payment Code, for companies still suffering from late payments and SMEs will be well served to draw on all available resources to find new routes forward.
"For example, with many SMEs still highly dependent on cheques, a specific piece of advice from Hutchinson is for companies to consider adopting automated payments methods. Bacs' research shows that 79% of SMEs still use cheques to pay bills and, with cheque clearing facilities due to be phased out by 2018, Hutchinson says: "SMEs should consider replacing the use of cheques with automated payment methods sooner rather than later. Automated payments offer many benefits in streamlining processes and helping cash flow, which companies can take advantage of now to help combat late payments.
"For more information about late payments and how to tackle them head on, visit www.paymedirect.co.uk where Bacs has developed a series of hints and tips for encouraging prompt payment.
About the researchBacs conducted independent market research with business to business specialists BDRC Continental. In June 2010, we conducted 477 telephone interviews with FDs, MDs, and owners of GB SMEs. The sample was representative of the GB SME audience and was representatively divided as follows, North = 126 interviews; Midlands = 107; South = 244; Manufacturing sector = 136; Distribution sector = 179; Services sector = 162.About Bacs:Founded in 1968, Bacs, the not-for-profit, membership-based industry body is owned by 15 of the leading banks and building societies in the UK and Europe.
Friday 17 September 2010
Mill Rythe Holiday Village LLP
Kirstie Provan and Mark Fry of Begbies Traynor, appointed joint administrators over Mill Rythe Holiday Village LLP (“MRH”) on 9 September 2010, are delighted to announce the successful sale of the business and assets of MRH to Mill Rythe Limited (owned by Away Resorts Limited), a non-connected party of MRH. The sale was completed shortly after MRH entered administration following an accelerated sales process run over a short time period by the proposed administrators in conjunction with BTG Corporate Finance.
Mill Rythe Limited has committed to improving the Mill Rythe Holiday Village’s existing offering and intends to make considerable improvements to the overall standards at the park, with particular attention being made to the accommodation, food quality and entertainment. It is anticipated that many of the 115 existing staff of MRH will be retained by Mill Rythe Limited to help realise this exciting new phase of the company’s development.
Commenting on the deal, the Managing Director of Away Resorts Ltd, Carl Castledine said, “We are delighted to have acquired Mill Rythe Holiday Resort which will fit into our existing portfolio of holiday park businesses very well. Over the years, thousands of families have enjoyed spending their holidays at the park and we are looking forward to welcoming them back soon. The park itself has held an excellent reputation for many years and we intend to improve upon that further.”
Kirstie Provan, Joint Administrator at Begbies Traynor said:
“We are delighted to have been able to identify a suitable buyer for Mill Rythe Holiday Village and consider that Away Resorts is a well matched owner with the ability, knowledge and skills required to take the business forward given their experience of the UK leisure market, specifically in relation to the turnaround of underperforming holiday parks. We have worked hard to ensure that the business is saved and are pleased to have achieved such a positive outcome for the business, future customers and employees as well as the local area. It is a fantastic result to have safeguarded the positions of the one thousand plus holiday makers that had outstanding bookings at Mill Rythe Holiday Village.
Mill Rythe Limited has committed to improving the Mill Rythe Holiday Village’s existing offering and intends to make considerable improvements to the overall standards at the park, with particular attention being made to the accommodation, food quality and entertainment. It is anticipated that many of the 115 existing staff of MRH will be retained by Mill Rythe Limited to help realise this exciting new phase of the company’s development.
Commenting on the deal, the Managing Director of Away Resorts Ltd, Carl Castledine said, “We are delighted to have acquired Mill Rythe Holiday Resort which will fit into our existing portfolio of holiday park businesses very well. Over the years, thousands of families have enjoyed spending their holidays at the park and we are looking forward to welcoming them back soon. The park itself has held an excellent reputation for many years and we intend to improve upon that further.”
Kirstie Provan, Joint Administrator at Begbies Traynor said:
“We are delighted to have been able to identify a suitable buyer for Mill Rythe Holiday Village and consider that Away Resorts is a well matched owner with the ability, knowledge and skills required to take the business forward given their experience of the UK leisure market, specifically in relation to the turnaround of underperforming holiday parks. We have worked hard to ensure that the business is saved and are pleased to have achieved such a positive outcome for the business, future customers and employees as well as the local area. It is a fantastic result to have safeguarded the positions of the one thousand plus holiday makers that had outstanding bookings at Mill Rythe Holiday Village.
Advertised Winding up Petitions
CELYN BUILDERS LTD
CHARLES PENTY LTD
COMPANION HOME LTD
CRYSTAL LEISURE (UK) LIMITED
DRIVE RITE SUPPORT SERVICES LIMITED
HYDRA-JECT VALVE SERVICES LTD
INTERGRATED OFFICE SOLUTIONS LIMITED
ITRS.UK.COM LIMITED
M-TECH AUTOMOTIVE LIMITED
THE NEW ISLAND PUB COMPANY LIMITED
If you require any free information on any of these email jarnold@creditman.co.uk
CHARLES PENTY LTD
COMPANION HOME LTD
CRYSTAL LEISURE (UK) LIMITED
DRIVE RITE SUPPORT SERVICES LIMITED
HYDRA-JECT VALVE SERVICES LTD
INTERGRATED OFFICE SOLUTIONS LIMITED
ITRS.UK.COM LIMITED
M-TECH AUTOMOTIVE LIMITED
THE NEW ISLAND PUB COMPANY LIMITED
If you require any free information on any of these email jarnold@creditman.co.uk
Up Coming Events
Over the coming months there are a number of up and coming events within the industry. To keep up to date with industry news here are a few events you may wish to attend.
Introduction to Bank Financial Statements - 20/09/2010 to 21/09/2010
Public Sector Credit - 21/09/2010 to 21/09/2010
Diploma Course in Credit Management - 21/09/2010 to 21/09/2010
Leveraged Finance: Structures & Safeguards - 21/09/2010 to 22/09/2010
Credit in Europe - 21/09/2010 to 21/09/2010
Getting Started in Credit Control and Collections - 22/09/2010 to 22/09/2010
Credit Policy Workshop - 22/09/2010 to 22/09/2010
The basics of credit control - 22/09/2010 to 22/09/2010
Utilities Conference 2010 - 22/09/2010 to 22/09/2010
Scottish Legal Debt Recovery - 23/09/2010 to 23/09/2010
Becoming and Extraordinary Coach - 23/09/2010 to 23/09/2010
Congress FENCA - 23/09/2010 to 26/09/2010
Essential Telephone Collection Techniques - 23/09/2010 to 23/09/2010
Introduction to Company Accounts - 23/09/2010 to 23/09/2010
Masterclass - One day conference - 23/09/2010 to 23/09/2010
Diploma Course in Credit Management - 23/09/2010 to 23/09/2010
Tactics and Strategies for creditors in a recession when court proceedings are not the solution - 23/09/2010 to 23/09/2010
The XVII Congress FENCA - 23/09/2010 to 26/09/2010
Compelling Business Presentations - 24/09/2010 to 24/09/2010
Management of Sundry Debtors - 27/09/2010 to 27/09/2010
Trade Credit Management - 27/09/2010 to 01/10/2010
For more information visit: http://www.creditman.co.uk/uk/members/centerEvents.asp
Introduction to Bank Financial Statements - 20/09/2010 to 21/09/2010
Public Sector Credit - 21/09/2010 to 21/09/2010
Diploma Course in Credit Management - 21/09/2010 to 21/09/2010
Leveraged Finance: Structures & Safeguards - 21/09/2010 to 22/09/2010
Credit in Europe - 21/09/2010 to 21/09/2010
Getting Started in Credit Control and Collections - 22/09/2010 to 22/09/2010
Credit Policy Workshop - 22/09/2010 to 22/09/2010
The basics of credit control - 22/09/2010 to 22/09/2010
Utilities Conference 2010 - 22/09/2010 to 22/09/2010
Scottish Legal Debt Recovery - 23/09/2010 to 23/09/2010
Becoming and Extraordinary Coach - 23/09/2010 to 23/09/2010
Congress FENCA - 23/09/2010 to 26/09/2010
Essential Telephone Collection Techniques - 23/09/2010 to 23/09/2010
Introduction to Company Accounts - 23/09/2010 to 23/09/2010
Masterclass - One day conference - 23/09/2010 to 23/09/2010
Diploma Course in Credit Management - 23/09/2010 to 23/09/2010
Tactics and Strategies for creditors in a recession when court proceedings are not the solution - 23/09/2010 to 23/09/2010
The XVII Congress FENCA - 23/09/2010 to 26/09/2010
Compelling Business Presentations - 24/09/2010 to 24/09/2010
Management of Sundry Debtors - 27/09/2010 to 27/09/2010
Trade Credit Management - 27/09/2010 to 01/10/2010
For more information visit: http://www.creditman.co.uk/uk/members/centerEvents.asp
Dishonesty claims in insolvency cases
By Martin Askew of Clarke WillmottPart 1 of 2
This is the first of a two part law bite that considers Insolvency claims involving dishonesty. The general perception is that claims involving an element of dishonesty are too difficult and uncertain to pursue. This perception appears to be based on a misunderstanding of what the Court requires to make a finding of dishonesty.
The aim of these lawbites is to address two of the key hurdles in establishing 'dishonesty' in order to:* Highlight the viability of bringing these actions; and * Demonstrate the depth of expertise that Clarke Willmott can bring to such proceedings.
Introduction:
The principal claw back provisions contained within the Insolvency Act 1986 ("the Act") are a useful tool for recovering assets. However, they have limitations in terms of the requirements, in most instances, of insolvency and the applicable time limits to bring claims. They may also be subject to issues of recoverability due to genuine or contrived financial difficulty. The existence of claw back provisions is well known and there are advisors who assist to arrange matters to frustrate an IP's attempts to make a recovery.
Sections 213 and 423 of the Act, seek to widen the potential range of recovery actions and there are also common law claims for breach of duty, breach of trust and related claims that can be pursued against directors and, significantly, other third parties. These often require an element of dishonesty to be proved but have an advantage that they enable remedies to be pursued against a wider range of targets, increasing the chances of pursuing someone who will have the means to satisfy a judgment.
The standard of proof in "dishonesty" claims.
The willingness on the part of IPs to resort to such claims is, understandably, tempered by the fact that many such claims require at least an element of ‘dishonesty' to be proved. There is an expectation that reference to fraud or dishonesty raises the required standard of proof, in turn increasing the risk of failure with the attendant write-off of time and potential liability for adverse costs.
This is not, strictly speaking, correct as a claim brought by an IP remains a civil claim for financial recovery, rather than to deprive the respondent of his liberty. A civil claim against an individual or company for damages for dishonest assistance, or similar claims, does not have to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The relevant standard of proof remains the balance of probabilities, although it is accepted that the Court will require convincing evidence before making such a finding.
Lord Nicholls explained in Re H (Minors) [1996] AC 563 at 586 that the balance of probabilities is a flexible test:
"The balance of probability standard means that a Court is satisfied an event occurred if the Court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. When assessing the probabilities the Court will have in mind as a factor, to whatever extent is appropriate in the particular case, that the more serious the allegation the less likely it is that it occurred and, hence, the stronger should be the evidence before the Court concludes that the allegation is established on the balance of probability. Fraud is usually less likely than negligence… Built into the preponderance of probability standard is a generous degree of flexibility in respect of the seriousness of the allegation. Although the result is much the same, this does not mean that where a serious allegation is an issue, the standard proof required is higher. It means only that the inherent probability or improbability of an event is itself a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probability and deciding whether on balance, the event occurred. The more improbable the event, the stronger must be the evidence that it did occur before, on the balance of probability, its occurrence will be established.
"The nature of the evidence being relied upon is a material consideration in assessing the likely prospects of success.
One of the key roles of a Judge is to assess the accuracy and truth of evidence submitted by witnesses. The purpose of cross examination is to test the evidence of any witnesses. The advantage insolvency cases have is that the majority of claims are based primarily upon the available documents. This generally restricts the range of plausible explanations that a respondent can put forward to avoid liability.
Even when fraud or dishonesty is being alleged, the IP will rely on what he regards as the plain construction of the documentary evidence. Strained interpretations put forward by respondents to avoid liability will generally be unconvincing. Judges will, more likely than not, determine cases on the basis of the most natural interpretation of documentary evidence.
The legal advisor has a key role to play. A good advisor will meticulously plan the strategy for every case so as to maximise the chances of success. The strategy will commence at the very outset of the case even before the first demand letters are sent, followed through to the discovery phase and finally at trial. There is no substitute for proven experience when considering claims involving dishonesty. Knowing what evidence to seek, where to obtain it and how to procure it are essential skills to ensure that the balance of probabilities standard of proof can be satisfied.The next law bite shall consider what constitutes ‘dishonesty’ in civil claims.
This is the first of a two part law bite that considers Insolvency claims involving dishonesty. The general perception is that claims involving an element of dishonesty are too difficult and uncertain to pursue. This perception appears to be based on a misunderstanding of what the Court requires to make a finding of dishonesty.
The aim of these lawbites is to address two of the key hurdles in establishing 'dishonesty' in order to:* Highlight the viability of bringing these actions; and * Demonstrate the depth of expertise that Clarke Willmott can bring to such proceedings.
Introduction:
The principal claw back provisions contained within the Insolvency Act 1986 ("the Act") are a useful tool for recovering assets. However, they have limitations in terms of the requirements, in most instances, of insolvency and the applicable time limits to bring claims. They may also be subject to issues of recoverability due to genuine or contrived financial difficulty. The existence of claw back provisions is well known and there are advisors who assist to arrange matters to frustrate an IP's attempts to make a recovery.
Sections 213 and 423 of the Act, seek to widen the potential range of recovery actions and there are also common law claims for breach of duty, breach of trust and related claims that can be pursued against directors and, significantly, other third parties. These often require an element of dishonesty to be proved but have an advantage that they enable remedies to be pursued against a wider range of targets, increasing the chances of pursuing someone who will have the means to satisfy a judgment.
The standard of proof in "dishonesty" claims.
The willingness on the part of IPs to resort to such claims is, understandably, tempered by the fact that many such claims require at least an element of ‘dishonesty' to be proved. There is an expectation that reference to fraud or dishonesty raises the required standard of proof, in turn increasing the risk of failure with the attendant write-off of time and potential liability for adverse costs.
This is not, strictly speaking, correct as a claim brought by an IP remains a civil claim for financial recovery, rather than to deprive the respondent of his liberty. A civil claim against an individual or company for damages for dishonest assistance, or similar claims, does not have to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The relevant standard of proof remains the balance of probabilities, although it is accepted that the Court will require convincing evidence before making such a finding.
Lord Nicholls explained in Re H (Minors) [1996] AC 563 at 586 that the balance of probabilities is a flexible test:
"The balance of probability standard means that a Court is satisfied an event occurred if the Court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. When assessing the probabilities the Court will have in mind as a factor, to whatever extent is appropriate in the particular case, that the more serious the allegation the less likely it is that it occurred and, hence, the stronger should be the evidence before the Court concludes that the allegation is established on the balance of probability. Fraud is usually less likely than negligence… Built into the preponderance of probability standard is a generous degree of flexibility in respect of the seriousness of the allegation. Although the result is much the same, this does not mean that where a serious allegation is an issue, the standard proof required is higher. It means only that the inherent probability or improbability of an event is itself a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probability and deciding whether on balance, the event occurred. The more improbable the event, the stronger must be the evidence that it did occur before, on the balance of probability, its occurrence will be established.
"The nature of the evidence being relied upon is a material consideration in assessing the likely prospects of success.
One of the key roles of a Judge is to assess the accuracy and truth of evidence submitted by witnesses. The purpose of cross examination is to test the evidence of any witnesses. The advantage insolvency cases have is that the majority of claims are based primarily upon the available documents. This generally restricts the range of plausible explanations that a respondent can put forward to avoid liability.
Even when fraud or dishonesty is being alleged, the IP will rely on what he regards as the plain construction of the documentary evidence. Strained interpretations put forward by respondents to avoid liability will generally be unconvincing. Judges will, more likely than not, determine cases on the basis of the most natural interpretation of documentary evidence.
The legal advisor has a key role to play. A good advisor will meticulously plan the strategy for every case so as to maximise the chances of success. The strategy will commence at the very outset of the case even before the first demand letters are sent, followed through to the discovery phase and finally at trial. There is no substitute for proven experience when considering claims involving dishonesty. Knowing what evidence to seek, where to obtain it and how to procure it are essential skills to ensure that the balance of probabilities standard of proof can be satisfied.The next law bite shall consider what constitutes ‘dishonesty’ in civil claims.
A to Z of Enforcement – Part Four
by David Carter of The Sheriffs Office
In this final part of our A to Z of enforcement, we cover the seizure and sale of goods, tools of the trade, “unless” orders, company voluntary arrangements and walking possession orders.
S - Seizure and sale of goodsIt is the duty of the HCEO or Certificated Bailiff to seize the goods of the debtor in order to sell (normally at auction) and raise the money to clear the debt. If sold at auction, the auctioneer will always try to get the best price for the goods, selling to the highest bidder on the day. The court may also allow for the goods seized to be sold privately rather than at public auction if it can be demonstrated that a higher price is likely to be obtained. This is called private treaty. This is usually the best option for goods that are quite specialist or where there is already an interested party.
T - Tools of the tradeTools of the trade, i.e. tools and equipment essential to work or trade, are exempt from seizure. However, these goods must be used solely by the debtor for the purposes of his or her work. For example, a commercial van that is also used by the debtor’s spouse is available for seizure. This exemption is only available to sole traders and cannot be claimed by partnerships or limited companies.
U – “Unless” orderThese are court orders specifying that a party to the proceedings must do a specific thing by a set date. If they do not, then the order stipulates what will happen next. If the party does not comply, then the next stage will happen automatically, without any further orders from the court. For example, the court may order the judgment debtor to pay in installments; if they miss an installment, then the HCEO is authorised to enter and seize goods to cover the outstanding balance owed.
V - Voluntary arrangements – how they impact on enforcementA company voluntary agreement is put in place to allow a company to continue trading while making an arrangement with its creditors. The arrangement is proposed by the company to its creditors and, once accepted by the appropriate majority, is binding on all creditors. Normally, the creditors will agree to accept a delay in payment, a smaller payment, or a combination of the two. Enforcement of writs of execution is normally suspended during a company voluntary arrangement.
W - Walking possession orderWhen leaving seized goods at the debtor’s premises, the HCEO provides a Walking Possession Agreement. This states that he has taken possession of the goods and that the goods will remain in his custody until the debt and all costs have been paid. The debtor may not sell or remove the goods, nor may he let any one else do so. The walking possession agreement also obtains the debtor’s permission to re-enter at any time and as often as they need to inspect the goods and remove them. The agreement allows the HCEO to re-enter by force if necessary.
Disclaimer: The statements and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Sheriffs High Court Enforcement Ltd, trading as The Sheriffs Office. Sheriffs High Court Enforcement Ltd does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. The author will not be held responsible for any comments posted by visitors to this site.
Please note that this article does not constitute legal advice. The author has used his best endeavours to make this article as accurate and complete as possible, but requests that the reader be aware that the law of England and Wales frequently changes. The author strongly advises the reader to take legal advice before embarking on any enforcement action.
To view the rest of this article please visit: www.creditman.co.uk
In this final part of our A to Z of enforcement, we cover the seizure and sale of goods, tools of the trade, “unless” orders, company voluntary arrangements and walking possession orders.
S - Seizure and sale of goodsIt is the duty of the HCEO or Certificated Bailiff to seize the goods of the debtor in order to sell (normally at auction) and raise the money to clear the debt. If sold at auction, the auctioneer will always try to get the best price for the goods, selling to the highest bidder on the day. The court may also allow for the goods seized to be sold privately rather than at public auction if it can be demonstrated that a higher price is likely to be obtained. This is called private treaty. This is usually the best option for goods that are quite specialist or where there is already an interested party.
T - Tools of the tradeTools of the trade, i.e. tools and equipment essential to work or trade, are exempt from seizure. However, these goods must be used solely by the debtor for the purposes of his or her work. For example, a commercial van that is also used by the debtor’s spouse is available for seizure. This exemption is only available to sole traders and cannot be claimed by partnerships or limited companies.
U – “Unless” orderThese are court orders specifying that a party to the proceedings must do a specific thing by a set date. If they do not, then the order stipulates what will happen next. If the party does not comply, then the next stage will happen automatically, without any further orders from the court. For example, the court may order the judgment debtor to pay in installments; if they miss an installment, then the HCEO is authorised to enter and seize goods to cover the outstanding balance owed.
V - Voluntary arrangements – how they impact on enforcementA company voluntary agreement is put in place to allow a company to continue trading while making an arrangement with its creditors. The arrangement is proposed by the company to its creditors and, once accepted by the appropriate majority, is binding on all creditors. Normally, the creditors will agree to accept a delay in payment, a smaller payment, or a combination of the two. Enforcement of writs of execution is normally suspended during a company voluntary arrangement.
W - Walking possession orderWhen leaving seized goods at the debtor’s premises, the HCEO provides a Walking Possession Agreement. This states that he has taken possession of the goods and that the goods will remain in his custody until the debt and all costs have been paid. The debtor may not sell or remove the goods, nor may he let any one else do so. The walking possession agreement also obtains the debtor’s permission to re-enter at any time and as often as they need to inspect the goods and remove them. The agreement allows the HCEO to re-enter by force if necessary.
Disclaimer: The statements and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Sheriffs High Court Enforcement Ltd, trading as The Sheriffs Office. Sheriffs High Court Enforcement Ltd does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. The author will not be held responsible for any comments posted by visitors to this site.
Please note that this article does not constitute legal advice. The author has used his best endeavours to make this article as accurate and complete as possible, but requests that the reader be aware that the law of England and Wales frequently changes. The author strongly advises the reader to take legal advice before embarking on any enforcement action.
To view the rest of this article please visit: www.creditman.co.uk
Asset Finance - keep the blood flowing
By Jeremy Rayment, Director at Menzies Corporate Finance.
It is an ironic feature of recessions that a large number of businesses survive the darkest days of the downturn, but fail just as the economy turns and we see signs of recovery. The reason that the vast majority of businesses fail is because of cashflow problems, not necessarily because they are unprofitable. When the economy emerges from recession and sales start to grow, both debtors and work in progress increase. This sucks up working capital, and if cashflow is not carefully managed, businesses can easily become over-extended. A business can be profitable, but if creditors cannot be paid it will soon cease trading.
Of course, banks have traditionally provided facilities to help businesses manage fluctuations in their cashflow, but this recession is different. It was caused by a banking crisis that itself was triggered by runaway debt. As a result, traditional bank lending is still relatively scarce, and so growing businesses may well have to look elsewhere for funding.
Go to or use the link belowhttp://menzies.co.uk/docs/Asset_Finance_-_Keep_the_Blood_Flowing_Sept10.pdf to read more...
It is an ironic feature of recessions that a large number of businesses survive the darkest days of the downturn, but fail just as the economy turns and we see signs of recovery. The reason that the vast majority of businesses fail is because of cashflow problems, not necessarily because they are unprofitable. When the economy emerges from recession and sales start to grow, both debtors and work in progress increase. This sucks up working capital, and if cashflow is not carefully managed, businesses can easily become over-extended. A business can be profitable, but if creditors cannot be paid it will soon cease trading.
Of course, banks have traditionally provided facilities to help businesses manage fluctuations in their cashflow, but this recession is different. It was caused by a banking crisis that itself was triggered by runaway debt. As a result, traditional bank lending is still relatively scarce, and so growing businesses may well have to look elsewhere for funding.
Go to or use the link belowhttp://menzies.co.uk/docs/Asset_Finance_-_Keep_the_Blood_Flowing_Sept10.pdf to read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)