ntinsolvency.com Report : Visit Site

Technical data of the ntinsolvency.com

Geo IP provides you such as latitude, longitude and ISP (Internet Service Provider) etc. informations. Our GeoIP service found where is host ntinsolvency.com. Currently, hosted in United Kingdom and its service provider is Fast Hosts Ltd .

HTTP Header Analysis

HTTP Header information is a part of HTTP protocol that a user's browser sends to called Microsoft-IIS/8.5 containing the details of what the browser wants and will accept back from the web server.

DNS

HtmlToText

welcome guest sign in call us: +44 (0)1962 77 21 81 toggle main menu visibility home about us who are we our team our values archive neil's blog insolvency exam training cpi(cppi, cpci) cpi training cpi distance learning: online plus cpi course dates and venues cpi costs cpi course details cpi joining instructions cpi booking form jieb jieb training 2018 jieb resits jieb costs jieb course dates & venues jieb distance learning: online plus jieb course details & booking jieb joining instructions cpd cpd tap - online cpd at your fingertips products: induction programmes, open courses, in-house courses & cpd tap courses: new or inexperienced team members courses: more experienced team members courses: essentials for all insolvency professionals courses: specialist topics courses: behavioural skills nti & demsa partnership nti technical nti technical service, support and documents document packs and replacement forms: why nti document packs and replacement forms: samples and information independent client reviews nnn: the newsletter ntiq the pips: mas accreditation pip 1: course details and content pip 2: course detail and content pip 3: course detail and content ntiq pips open courses ntiq pips and ivas ntiq pips and dmps ntiq total service nti membership about nti membership standard packages the accumulator members jieb corporate insolvency jieb personal insolvency jieb archive cpi (cpci, cppi) cpd members cpd iti induction cpd tap foundation cpd tap ntiq members updates and stuff nti membership accumulator contact exam training market leading exam training courses for jieb and the cpi suite of qualifications learn more cpd open courses and bespoke in-house programmes, as well as the unique ‘nti membership’ package learn more nti technical ground-breaking comprehensive document packs, icrs and a full technical support service learn more ntiq fully mas accredited pip qualifications for the iva and debt management plan sectors learn more welcome to neil taylor insolvency neil taylor insolvency (nti) is proud to be europe's largest bespoke insolvency and restructuring training company. we provide a full range of exam and cpd training courses, as well as technical products blended with peerless client service across the sector. we relish the prospect of offering the insolvency, restructuring and debt management solution industries a 'one stop shop' of creative and innovative service excellence. scroll down to announcements below to see all the latest offerings and services the nti provide. what's new... misfeasance claims as you may be aware, the remedy available to liquidators pursuant to s212 of the insolvency act 1986 is for directors (who have misapplied money or breached their fiduciary duties) to repay, restore or account for the money or property, or any part of the same. s212 allows a liquidator to seek a contribution from the misfeasant director, rather than creating a new cause of action. remedies sought by claims under s212 are subject to the limitations act 1980. in eurocruit europe limited (2007) , it was held that the six year period ran from the date that the damage was suffered by the company, rather than the date of winding up. this can naturally cause problems for liquidators, as the limitation period may have expired before they were appointed. in burnden holdings (uk) limited v fielding (2018) , the supreme court upheld the court of appeal’s decision that s21 of the limitations act [i.e. that there is no limitation period where a beneficiary is claiming against a trustee for fraudulent breach of trust or to recover property or proceeds of trust property] does apply where directors have misappropriated funds or property from a company for their own use. the court also recognised that directors are trustees of company property. the supreme court also recognised that such claims are likely to arise more than six years after the breach of duty. claims by liquidators where company property has been converted to the use of the directors are therefore not subject to a limitation period. as you may be aware, the remedy available to liquidators pursuant to s212 of the insolvency act 1986 is for directors (who have misapplied money or breached their fiduciary duties) to ... link bevan and another v walker and others (2018) mr walker was appointed as liquidator of domestic & general insulation limited (“the company”) under a members’ voluntary liquidation. several months later, this was converted to a creditors’ voluntary liquidation, and simon chandler and scott bevan were appointed as joint liquidators at a creditors’ meeting convened by mr walker. bevan and chandler became concerned about their appointment as liquidators, which was also dependent on the validity of walker’s appointment. their concern was based on s84(1)(b) of the insolvency act 1986, whereby a company may be wound up voluntarily if such a special resolution is passed. however, in this case, required notice of the resolution was not given to hsbc as qualifying floating charge holders over the company. walker was the only one who had the ability to convene a creditors’ meeting, and if he was not validly appointed, he would have had no authority to appoint bevan and chandler as joint liquidators. bevan and chandler did not believe that the bank’s qualifying floating charge was enforceable at the time of the creditors’ meeting. the high court held that the initial resolution and successive appointments of walker and then bevan and chandler were valid, despite finding that hsbc were a qualifying floating charge holder and should have been given notice of the special resolution to wind up the company. the court held that the resolution was effective in spite of the failure to give notice. mr walker was appointed as liquidator of domestic & general insulation limited (“the company”) under a members’ voluntary liquidation. several months later, this was converted to ... link cpd tap update with cpd tap we provide three or more webcasts and technical reading per month on key areas affecting ips right now which over a year period will meet your cpd requirements too. recent webcasts include: update regarding the money laundering, terrorist financing and transfer of funds (information on the payer) regulations 2017 (“mlr 2017”) a summary of dear ip 79 an update on sip 9, fees and reporting stevensdrake v hunt ball (pv solar solutions ltd) v hughes & anor r3 standard conditions for ivas (version 4) all this and much more from our cpd accredited webcasts. annual subscription for £995+vat per year for up to 3 users. contact richard at [email protected] if you are interested, have any questions or would like to see a free sample. register for our cpd tap webcast subscription to see our latest webcasts with cpd tap we provide three or more webcasts and technical reading per month on key areas affecting ips right now which over a year period will meet your cpd requirements too ... link the wyman report independent review of the funding of debt advice in england, wales, scotland and northern ireland the wyman report recommended that: “all authorised debt advisers should have a debt advice qualification before they can offer debt advice unassisted, and should be required each year to undergo proportionate continuing professional development that includes updating for changes in law and reviewing the latest evidence of effective practice. the requirement for, and syllabus of, the debt advice qualification, and the requirement for continuing professional development, should be set out by the fca. there should be a phased transition for existing advisers, where they have a window of three years to obtain an approved qualification to enable them to continue to work in the sector.” nti have received huge interest from debt advice businesses all over the uk, many of them recommended to us by the fca. it is going to be an important three years for many of our clients. nti has its own series of mas accredited qualifications, personal insolvency practical (pips) 1, 2 and 3. we would be delighted to fill in any blanks you may have with details. contact [email protected] independent review of the funding of debt advice in england, wales, scotland and northern ireland the wyman report recommended that: link shb realisations limited v the prudential assurance company limited (2018) (anthony john wright and geoffrey paul rowley as joint liquidators of shb realisations limited (formerly bhs limited) (in liquidation) v the prudential assurance company limited (2018) as you will no doubt be aware, bhs entered into a cva in 2016, which reduced their rents by up to 75% in some cases. the cva provided that if it was terminated, these discounts would be considered to have never happened and the landlords would therefore have the claims they would have had, had the cva not been approved. one month later, bhs entered into administration, with the administrators trading from the stores whilst attempting to sell the business, and paying reduced rents established under the cva. no buyer was found; the company was liquidated and the cva terminated. directions were sought from the high court by the liquidators to determine whether bhs was obliged to pay full contractual (pre-cva) rents to its landlords. they argued that this was a contractual penalty. any contractual provision which imposes a liability on a party for breaching their obligations that is disproportionate to the other party’s interest in the contract being performed, is considered unenforceable. the intention of this rule is to provide a relief against oppressive contracts. the high court found for the landlord in this case. it decided that the rule against penalties did not apply to cvas, and that the full back rent had to be paid to the landlord as an expense of the administration. as you will no doubt be aware, bhs entered into a cva in 2016, which reduced their rents by up to 75% in some cases. the cva provided that if it was terminated, these discounts would be ... link singularis holdings ltd v daiwa capital markets europe ltd (2018) singularis holdings limited (“the company”) was formed to deal with the personal assets of mr al sanea, the sole shareholder of the company, but one of a number of directors. daiwa capital markets europe ltd (“the bank”) operated the company’s bank account. the bank became aware that the saudi arabian monetary authority had frozen mr al sanea’s assets, and decided that no further payments should be mdae from the account. the bank, however, allowed mr al sanea to make a number of payments from the account, which it was later discovered were fraudulent. the company then went into liquidation. a claim was issued by the company against the bank for the total amount of the transfers made from the account. the high court held that bank’s duty of care to the company had been breached. the bank appealed the decision. they considered that mr al sanea’s fraudulent activity should be attributed to the company. the court of appeal held that the high court’s decision was correct. it was found that in order to attribute one director’s fraudulent activity to a company, that company must be a sole-director, sole-shareholder company. in this case, the other directors were not active in the management of the company, but they were still innocent directors to whom the bank owed a duty of care. the bank’s appeal was therefore dismissed. singularis holdings limited (“the company”) was formed to deal with the personal assets of mr al sanea, the sole shareholder of the company, but one of a number of directors ... link ve vegas investors iv llc (“vegas”) and others v shinners and others (2018) vegas (the company) encountered financial difficulties and instructed ips, who were instructed to assist with placing the company into administration and to effect a pre-pack sale. the administrators struggled to obtain information from the company prior to their appointment, which made it difficult for them to find an arm’s length purchaser as they were unable to provide sufficient information to any purchaser. only one external purchaser came forward. a sale was completed to a newco set up by vegas’ directors for a price of £1.75m. numerous creditors sought the removal of the administrators, and demanded new administrators (deloitte) be appointed to investigate whether the sale had been conducted at an undervalue, and whether the current administrators’ duty to creditors had been breached. there was also an alleged conflict of interests. the administrators contested the proceedings at first but soon gave a letter of their intention to resign to the court, agreeing to pay all costs. the asked the court to shorten the five business days’ notice of resignation to creditors, with the apparent intention that the creditors make the decision on the resignation and not the court. the administrators were immediately removed by the court, and were replaced with deloitte. the court considered whether the directors did their best under the time pressure, and whether the directors took advantage of the situation, using their position to purchase the business back at an undervalue. they also considered the ips’ involvement and that they should have appreciated that further investigation was needed. the court commented that there is an unavoidable conflict where the ips are members of the same firm that provided advice prior to administration and then subsequently act as administrators. this case was discussed in more detail in our recent cpd tap webcast. vegas (the company) encountered financial difficulties and instructed ips, who were instructed to assist with placing the company into administration and to effect a pre-pack sale ... link all new at nti - spring 2018 all new at nti - spring 2018 link gdpr webcast nti present an essential guide to the impending gdpr regulations and how they will affect you as ips. this webcast will provide you with vital information on: the key principles of the gdpr what rights data subjects have the role of a data protection officer how to deal with subject access requests policies and processes that should be established available now for unlimited viewing throughout 2018 via our exclusive cpd members area - click here to book nti present an essential guide to the impending gdpr regulations and how they will affect you as ips for just £85 +vat ... available now! link privilege project finance ltd v ss agri power ltd (2017) the high court recently considered the circumstances in which the appointing creditor’s existing relationship with proposed administrators could be considered a ‘perceived bias’. in this case, the lender had no floating charge to appoint administrators over the company, which had defaulted on its debt to the lender. by the time the administration application was to be heard, the company had conceded insolvency and the need to appoint administrators. they objected to the lender’s choice of administrators, however. they alleged a pre-existing close relationship between the lender and the firm of ips; the lender had engaged the firm in other cases, and the firm had advised the lender in relation to the debtor company prior to the administration application being made. they had also liaised closely with an lpa receiver appointed by the lender. the company considered that this constituted grounds to reject the appointment for the following reasons: the administration would be likely to involve close scrutiny of potential claims that the company might have against the lender in relation to the finance advanced the lender had previously expressed an interest in acquiring the company’s assets no actual bias was alleged. the company claimed that the above factors gave rise to a ‘perception’ of a lack of independence, which justified independent administrators being appointed which had no previous involvement with either the lender or the company. the judge summarised the principles that have emerged from a number of previous decisions where one stakeholder or another had proposed alternative administrators to those proposed by the creditor making the application. the company itself will not usually have a legitimate interest in the identitiy of the administrators, unless the company is to be rescued as a going concern the creditor’s nominee will usually prevail if there is a contest between that of the directors and the creditor there is a public interest in officeholders both being perceived to be and acting in the best interests of creditors generally will the appointment result in proper operation of the administration? it is not generally a consideration that there is a pre-appointment relationship; the officeholder is required to be impartial by statute the prior relationship with the proposed administrators and the lender was held to be within the “run of relationships one encounters when commercial lenders seek administration orders”. the judge also held that it was proper that the proposed administrator take steps to investigate the company’s situation prior to any appointment. the judge considered the potential claims by the company against the secured creditor to be dubious, and to be viewed with scepticism. the secured creditor would still be the largest creditor even if the claims could be proven. the judge was also of the opinion that the administrators were more than capable of securing the best price for the company’s assets, notwithstanding their relationship with the lender as a potential bidder. this decision is a reassuring one in that it shows the respect of the courts to the integrity of insolvency practitioners and will also give lenders confidence that they can choose their own officeholders, despite potential pre-existing relationships between the two the high court recently considered the circumstances in which the appointing creditor’s existing relationship with proposed administrators could be considered a ‘perceived bias' ... link ball (pv solar solutions ltd) v hughes & anor (2017) timothy colin hamilton ball (liquidator of pv solar solutions ltd) & pv solar solutions ltd (in liquidation) v paul james hughes & martyn paul ware this case concerned an application brought principally by mr ball under s212 for misfeasance against two of the company’s directors. he alleged that in causing the company to enter into a tax avoidance scheme in 2012, and by applying credits against their directors’ loan accounts, they acted in breach of their statutory duties. full detail of this case was covered in our recent cpd tap webcast. this case concerned an application brought principally by mr ball under s212 for misfeasance against two of the company’s directors ... link mulalley and co ltd v regent building society ltd (2017) the respondents (the building society and a christopher white) served a statutory demand on the company, on the basis of debts which had allegedly been assigned to one of the respondents by a subcontractor of the company, who had presented a winding up petition prior to the purported assignment. the company disputed the debts on the grounds that under the written agreement between the company and its subcontractor, the assignment could not take place without the company’s consent. at the time of the statutory demand, some of the debts had not fallen due, and others had been paid already. the authenticity of the assignment agreement was also disputed. the company sought an injunction against the respondents presenting a petition based on the statutory demand. the high court noted that the threshold for the granting of such an injunction was low, and that the court did not need to determine if the dispute was valid. it was held that the challenge to the debt must merely be in good faith and have sufficient substance to justify it. an injunction was granted, as it was held that each of the grounds for dispute were sufficiently substantial and the arguments were in good faith. the respondents (the building society and a christopher white) served a statutory demand on the company, on the basis of debts which had allegedly been assigned to one of the ... link r3 introduce updated standard conditions for ivas r3 have announced that they have issued version 4 of their standard conditions for individual voluntary arrangements (“ivas”) with effect from 20 january 2018. the standard conditions have been updated to incorporate changes introduced by the insolvency (england and wales) rules 2016, and to deal with matters raised by the recent green v wright case (about which we produced a cpd tap webcast). the main changes made to the standard conditions concern the introduction of decision making procedures introduced by the new rules. they hope this will provide flexibility for supervisors to choose the most appropriate procedure for the circumstances of the case. green v wright led to a review of certain terms used in the r3 standard terms, and r3 have taken steps to remove perceived ambiguities. that case also determined that the trust of arrangement assets continued despite the completion of the arrangement and vacation of office by the supervisor. r3 have introduced a ‘trust realisation period’, which begins with commencement of the iva, and continues until all sums have been realised and distributed to creditors under the terms of the arrangement despite full implementation or termination of the iva. for our views on the practicalities of this see our latest cpd tap webcast r3 have announced that they have issued version 4 of their standard conditions for individual voluntary arrangements (“ivas”) with effect from 20 january 2018 ... link r v andrew john camilleri (2018) mr camilleri was unanimously convicted on 29 january 2018, following a private prosecution, of making false representations in an iva, contrary to s262 ia 1986. the prosecution was brought by one of his creditors. if mr camilleri’s iva had been approved, it would have wiped out all of his debts (in excess of £9m) and paid his creditors a small fraction of their debt back in the way of dividends. it was the prosecution’s case that between 18 february and 17 march 2011, mr camilleri made a series of false representations in this proposal. during 2007 and 2008, mr camilleri incurred a large amount of debt by obtaining money from his creditors to fund his property empire. he requested short-term bridging loans (often for a matter of weeks) and offered his creditors security against the properties he was buying. instead of repaying the money and interest under the loans, he convinced his creditors to release further funds in order for him to buy further properties. he also eventually informed them that there was no security against the properties for their loans. in order to defend bankruptcy proceedings brought by his creditors, he prepared an iva proposal on 18 february 2011. this proposal pretended to set out his total assets and debts, and was presented to his creditors on 17 march 2011. he had stated that he had no assets, but that his cousin would lend him £100,000 to inject into the iva to pay creditors. he stated his total unsecured creditors were £5.7m, and they would receive 1.29p in the £. it was discovered that mr camilleri had not declared all of his debts, which were substantially more than £5.7m. had the true creditor figures been included in the proposal, his creditors would not have seen anything like the paltry 1.29p in the £ promised. mr camilleri had declared in his iva proposal that he owned all of the shares in fresh start living limited and that these shares had nominal value. the prosecution produced evidence that that company had £1.125m in one of its bank accounts, just months after he had presented his iva proposal. evidence also showed that during the year 2011, that company’s fixed asset register included various luxury vehicles such as a maserati and an aston martin. mr camilleri left for switzerland on the last day of trial, before the jury returned their verdict. he was sentenced to a custodial sentence of 12 months, suspended for 12 months, and a £10,000 fine. he had placed every obstacle in the way of the private prosecution since the case commenced in april 2015 in order to attempt to prevent him from answering the offence of which he was charged. mr camilleri was unanimously convicted on 29 january 2018, following a private prosecution, of making false representations in an iva, contrary to s262 ia 1986. the prosecution was ... link stevensdrake v hunt (stevensdrake limited (trading as stevensdrake solicitors) v hunt) as you may be aware, stevensdrake is a firm of solicitors who sought payment of their costs from stephen hunt, an ip. the parties had worked together on various insolvency matters for many years, and had signed a conditional fee agreement (cfa) back in 2008, having previously agreed a retainer in 2005, whereby stevensdrake agreed to wait for payment of its fees until any assets were recovered in an estate being dealt with by mr hunt. mr hunt refused to pay stevensdrake’s bill, and they claimed personally against him for costs. our recent cpd tap webcast provided more information on the latest decision from the court of appeal in this case. (stevensdrake limited (trading as stevensdrake solicitors) v hunt) as you may be aware, stevensdrake is a firm of solicitors who sought payment of their costs from stephen hunt, an ip ... link contingent provable debts in bankruptcies a creditor can prove in a bankruptcy if they are owed a debt by the bankrupt, even if the debt has not fallen due for payment at the time the debtor goes bankrupt. it was accepted historically that orders for costs made after the commencement of bankruptcy were not provable debts, even if the litigation concerned was underway before the bankruptcy. this was because the obligation to pay costs did not arise until the court made the costs order. this was overturned by the supreme court in the re nortel case. the supreme court has widened the scope of contingent debts and has set out a universal approach which helps clarify what represents a provable debt. the key factor established here was whether there is some form of duty or legal relationship that carries a real prospect of payment in due course. in the majority of cases, orders for costs made after the commencement of bankruptcy will represent a provable debt. a creditor can prove in a bankruptcy if they are owed a debt by the bankrupt, even if the debt has not fallen due for payment at the time the debtor goes bankrupt ... link applications to set aside a statutory demand statutory demands are quick, simple and relatively inexpensive to present, and can be a vital tool in a lender attempting to get a debtor to pay its debt. however, a statutory demand does not guarantee settlement of the debt. lenders are increasingly subject to applications by debtors to have the demand set aside. once valid service has been made, an application to set aside must be made by the debtor within 18 days. the following grounds can be used to set the demand aside (as set out in rule 10.5 ir2016): the debtor appears to have a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand which equals or exceeds the amount of the debt specified in the statutory demand 2. the debt is disputed on grounds which appear to the court to be substantial it appears that the creditor holds some security in relation to the debt claimed by the demand, and either rule 10.1(9) [identification of debt] is not complied with in relation to it, or the court is satisfied that the value of the security equals or exceeds the full amount of the debt the court is satisfied, on other grounds, that the demand ought to be set aside once an application has been made, the 21 day time limit to comply with the demand is paused until the application has been determined or dismissed. in crossley-cooke v europanel (uk) ltd (2010) , it was determined that ‘substantial grounds’ were those where the debtor could demonstrate a “triable issue”, and was not necessary to assess the full credibility of the debtor’s arguments; a prima facie dispute over the debt was all that was required. guinan iii v caldwell associates (2004) allowed an appeal against a decision to refuse an application to set aside a statutory demand, on the grounds that “unless there is no real prospect of one person’s evidence being believed or accepted, the matter has to go to cross examination (and disclosure)”. the court in this case stated that debtors have a relatively low hurdle to overcome in demonstrating that their case has some prospect of success. gaind v dunbar assets plc (2016) took a more lender-friendly approach. a personal guarantee was held to be valid and enforceable. this was despite the lender indicating that the guarantee was a formality in order for them to approve the lending, and that the bank had no policy of enforcing such guarantees. it was determined that because it was a legal document, any ‘reasonable businessman’ should assume it would be enforceable. the high court in dunbar assets plc v lawrech john butler (2015) established that in order for a demand to be set aside, the debtor must demonstrate factual issues that are capable as being grounds to dispute liability. the case of estoppel advanced by this debtor could not give rise to a triable issue on whether the debt was valid and enforceable. the debtor even claimed that in 2009, they reached an agreement with the lender that the guarantee would not be enforceable, and that the lender was a shadow director of the guarantor company. you will see from the above cases that judicial treatment of debtors seeking to set aside a demand has been mixed. it is clear from europanel and guinan iii that there is a low threshold for debtors to overcome when attempting to dispute a statutory demand. guarantors have become more astute in seeking to set aside demands presented against them, often raising weak claims in the process. a change in approach by the courts to recognise this would be welcome news to lenders and ips alike. statutory demands are quick, simple and relatively inexpensive to present, and can be a vital tool in a lender attempting to get a debtor to pay its debt. however, a statutory demand ... link new rules, new regulations, new sips and new case law 'need to know' practical updates courses new rules, new regulations, new sips and new case law the new rules will be one year old in april ... what a year it has been!!. at nti we strongly believe that this anniversary grants the opportunity to look at all essential updates, practical consequences and ramifications of the changes, with particular emphasis on how the changes have affected the profession and the way you do your jobs. we have designed a highly practical and informative half day update course in central london on 5 april for insolvency professionals. it is priced at just £195.00 (ex vat). click here to book or, if you prefer a bespoke half day for your team, at your premises, at a time you choose, focusing on specific challenges and issues, we can set this up for you for only £995.00 (ex vat) for up to 10 delegates. please call gail to book on 01962 676336, or email [email protected] new rules, new regulations, new sips and new case law link bank and clients plc v king and brown bank and clients plc v king and brown the high court considered the liability of king and brown (the guarantors) where they alleged that the bank had made representations that would free them from their personal guarantees. mr brown and mr king were ceo and director respectively of ve interactive ltd (“ve”), a so-called ‘unicorn’ software company with a perceived valuation of over £1 billion. in late 2016, messrs king and brown attended a meeting with the bank in order to borrow £2.15m. the loan was secured, amongst other things, by personal guarantees from the defendants. in april 2017, ve went into administration and was sold for £1.49m, with the bank seeking payment under its guarantees. this was not forthcoming from mr king or mr brown, and the bank issued judgment proceedings. in their defence, mr king and mr brown claimed that a representative of the bank had told them in by the lifts at the bank’s offices immediately after the meeting regarding the loan that the bank would seek payment from ve and/or enforce its other securities before enforcing the personal guarantees from king and brown. the bank strenuously denied such allegations. the court entered summary judgment against the guarantors. it was not persuaded by these arguments, and noted that the guarantees were signed by both king and brown, and clearly defined their obligations to the bank. the alleged representations lacked precision and were vague. they were also raised at a late stage in the proceeding, and were contradicted by more reliable contemporary evidence. the judge also considered messrs king and brown to be intelligent, experienced and sophisticated businessmen, but “who behaved with unacceptably low standards of commercial morality in their dealings with ve’s money as well as in their dealings with the bank.” the high court considered the liability of king and brown (the guarantors) where they alleged that the bank had made representations that would free them from their personal guarantees ... link carillion collapse carillion collapse it will no doubt not have escaped your attention that the carillion group entered into compulsory liquidation on 15 january 2018, with the official receiver being appointed as liquidator, and a team at pwc acting as special managers. your firm may well have received various enquiries from worried suppliers, sub-contractors and other parties who may be affected by the liquidations of those companies. subcontractors owed money by carillion are apparently already being pressurised by their banks and have begun making redundancies. pwc have said that whilst they will pay for goods and services provided after 15 january 2018, they will not do so for those provided prior to liquidation. up to 30,000 small businesses are thought to be affected, with carillion said to owe some £900m to its creditors. the government has fast-tracked the investigation into the directors’ conduct, however whatever its findings, it will be of little consequence for those creditors. its main rivals could also be at risk. one of the main questions suppliers or subcontractors contacting you will be asking if whether they will get paid, and whether they will have to pay third parties. the housing grants, construction and regeneration act 1996 (more commonly referred to as the construction act) was amended by the local democracy economic development and construction act 2009. s113 of this act did away with the so-called “pay when paid” provisions, whereby a payer need not pay if they had not been paid themselves. there was a qualification, however: “a provision making payment under a construction contract condition on the payer receiving payment from a third person is ineffective unless that third person… is insolvent” this is the only situation where “pay when paid” remains a defence to non-payment to sub-contractors or suppliers. in melville dundas ltd (in receivership) & ors v george wimpey uk ltd & ors (2007), the house of lords held that the payer was not obliged to pay as insolvency changed the normal position. the obligation to pay a notified sum was extinguished, even when a pay less notice [in this case, its predecessor, a withholding notice] had not been issued. this was enshrined in law in 2009 when the act was amended: 111(1) subject as follows, where a payment is provided for by a construction contract, the payer must pay the notified sum (to the extent not already paid on or before the final date for payment … 111(10) subsection 1 does not apply in relation to a payment provided for by a construction contract where:- the contract provides that, if the payee becomes insolvent the payer need not pay any sum due in respect of the payment, and the payee has become insolvent after the prescribed period...[for serving a pay less notice so what does this mean for your client? carillion’s insolvency is likely to leave many subcontractors unable to fulfil obligations on other projects. if “pay when paid” clauses are included, they must be limited to cases of insolvency to be valid. if payment is withheld on the basis of non-payment under another contract without a valid “pay when paid” clause, the client should take immediate action to preserve contractual rights. your client could consider suspending performance of obligations to a payer where sums are already overdue their final date for payment (this is permitted under s112 of the act) but will depend on the provisions of the relevant contract(s). payers that have notice of payee insolvency should consider issuing a pay less notice remember that if the payee’s insolvency occurs before the final date for payment, then payment can be lawfully resisted ensure downstream payment obligations are complied with set-off can also be applied where applicable the client should: review their exposure to the carillion liquidation(s) and any continuing obligations that exist consider notifying insurers: any failure to do this promptly could prejudice cover be cautious of entering into a new contract with the liquidator and/or its special managers, if at all review terms of appointment of sub-contractors consider whether it is able to resist granting collateral warranties demanded by third parties on existing contracts where you are not paid ensure payment notices are served on time where already in a contract with carillion this is essential for maintaining contractual entitlement to payment carry out an audit of the status of works and equipment on site ensure appropriate security measures are in place ensure good physical records are kept consider whether unfavourable contract terms can be renegotiated with any purchaser of part of the carillion business(es) or the liquidator(s) contact the liquidator if there are any contracts that they are able to ‘take over’ from carillion consider whether any intellectual property licences can be suspended consider the impact of the public procurement regulations 2015 for any pfi projects monitor developments on www.pwc.co.uk/carillion it will no doubt not have escaped your attention that the carillion group entered into compulsory liquidation on 15 january 2018, with the official receiver being appointed as liquidator ... link announcements jieb exam software please click here for further information on the jieb electronic exams in 2018 more butterworths law insolvency handbook 20th edition orders now closed more all new at nti - spring 2018 all new at nti - spring 2018 more introduction to insolvency - induction programmes the perfect way to train new recruits to your business more gdpr webcast nti present an essential guide to the impending gdpr regulations and how they will affect you as ips for just £85 +vat ... available now! more new rules, new regulations, new sips and new case law new rules, new regulations, new sips and new case law - half day course running in london on 5 april 2018 more videos & webinars welcome to cpi with nti added: 04.01.2018 | tags: cpi welcome to cpi with nti more cpi exam introduction added: 03.07.2017 | tags: cpi january 1 - cpi exam introduction more an introduction to numbers added: 03.07.2017 | tags: cpi january 2 - an introduction to numbers more food for thought... debt management businesses: accredited training added: 27.09.2016 | tags: blog on 25 june 2015 the financial conduct authority published a far-reaching thematic review of the quality of advice offered by debt management businesses. the results were not pretty. more all the cpd you will ever need (honest) added: 23.08.2016 | tags: blog why wouldn’t you respond to a blog that promised you ‘all the cpd you will need for the next year’? more food for summer thought? added: 20.06.2016 | tags: blog how much do you weigh … how much do you think? why? apparently the level of calorie burn depends upon how bright you are. the more mental activity you put in the more calories you burn. more our exam pass rates cpi june 2017 80% cpci june 2017 85% cppi june 2017 80% jieb paper 1 2017 72% jieb paper 2 2017 62% jieb paper 3 2017 70% about us who are we? our team our values archive neil's blog our services insolvency exam training cpd nti technical ntiq contact us unit a prospect commercial park prospect road alresford so24 9qf business hours: mon-fri, 9am-5pm tel: +44 (0)1962 77 21 81 privacy policy cookies help us deliver our services. by continuing to browse this website, you agree to our use of cookies. ok insolvency training cpi training cpi course dates/venues cpi booking form jieb training jieb course dates/venues jieb booking form cpd cpd products for inexperienced team members for experienced team members essentials for ips special topics behavioural skills nti technical service, support & documents why nti document packs? document pack samples/info independant client reviews nnn newsletter ntiq the pips: mas accreditation pip 1: course details & content pip 2: course detail & content pip 3: course detail & content ntiq pips & ivas ntiq pips & dmps privacy policy

URL analysis for ntinsolvency.com

https://www.ntinsolvency.com/singularis-holdings-ltd-v-daiwa-capital-markets-europe-ltd-2018
https://www.ntinsolvency.com/gdpr-webcast
https://www.ntinsolvency.com/cpi-exam-introduction
https://www.ntinsolvency.com/about-us
https://www.ntinsolvency.com/shb-realisations-limited-v-the-prudential-assurance-company-limited-2018
https://www.ntinsolvency.com/r-v-andrew-john-camilleri-2018
https://www.ntinsolvency.com/privacy-policy.aspx
https://www.ntinsolvency.com/ntiq/pip-2-course-detail-and-content
https://www.ntinsolvency.com/cpd/products-open-courses-in-house-courses-cpd-tap
https://www.ntinsolvency.com/about-us/neils-blog/all-the-cpd-you-will-ever-need-honest
https://www.ntinsolvency.com/newsletter/
https://www.ntinsolvency.com/cpd/cpd-tap-online-cpd-at-your-fingertips
https://www.ntinsolvency.com/ntiq/ntiq-total-service
https://www.ntinsolvency.com/contingent-provable-debts-in-bankruptcies
https://www.ntinsolvency.com/members
insolvency-practitioners.org.uk
demsa.co.uk

Whois Information

Whois is a protocol that is access to registering information. You can reach when the website was registered, when it will be expire, what is contact details of the site with the following informations. In a nutshell, it includes these informations;

Domain Name: NTINSOLVENCY.COM
Registry Domain ID: 1787634054_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.tucows.com
Registrar URL: http://www.tucowsdomains.com
Updated Date: 2017-02-18T12:47:12Z
Creation Date: 2013-03-20T12:12:49Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2018-03-20T12:12:49Z
Registrar: Tucows Domains Inc.
Registrar IANA ID: 69
Registrar Abuse Contact Email:
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone:
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited
Name Server: NS1.LIVEDNS.CO.UK
Name Server: NS2.LIVEDNS.CO.UK
Name Server: NS3.LIVEDNS.CO.UK
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form: https://www.icann.org/wicf/
>>> Last update of whois database: 2017-09-11T21:08:50Z <<<

For more information on Whois status codes, please visit https://icann.org/epp

NOTICE: The expiration date displayed in this record is the date the
registrar's sponsorship of the domain name registration in the registry is
currently set to expire. This date does not necessarily reflect the expiration
date of the domain name registrant's agreement with the sponsoring
registrar. Users may consult the sponsoring registrar's Whois database to
view the registrar's reported date of expiration for this registration.

TERMS OF USE: You are not authorized to access or query our Whois
database through the use of electronic processes that are high-volume and
automated except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or
modify existing registrations; the Data in VeriSign Global Registry
Services' ("VeriSign") Whois database is provided by VeriSign for
information purposes only, and to assist persons in obtaining information
about or related to a domain name registration record. VeriSign does not
guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a Whois query, you agree to abide
by the following terms of use: You agree that you may use this Data only
for lawful purposes and that under no circumstances will you use this Data
to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail, telephone,
or facsimile; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to VeriSign (or its computer systems). The compilation,
repackaging, dissemination or other use of this Data is expressly
prohibited without the prior written consent of VeriSign. You agree not to
use electronic processes that are automated and high-volume to access or
query the Whois database except as reasonably necessary to register
domain names or modify existing registrations. VeriSign reserves the right
to restrict your access to the Whois database in its sole discretion to ensure
operational stability. VeriSign may restrict or terminate your access to the
Whois database for failure to abide by these terms of use. VeriSign
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.

The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .EDU domains and
Registrars.

  REGISTRAR Tucows Domains Inc.

SERVERS

  SERVER com.whois-servers.net

  ARGS domain =ntinsolvency.com

  PORT 43

  TYPE domain

DOMAIN

  NAME ntinsolvency.com

  CHANGED 2017-02-18

  CREATED 2013-03-20

STATUS
clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited

NSERVER

  NS1.LIVEDNS.CO.UK 213.171.192.250

  NS2.LIVEDNS.CO.UK 213.171.193.250

  NS3.LIVEDNS.CO.UK 213.171.192.254

  REGISTERED yes

Mistakes

The following list shows you to spelling mistakes possible of the internet users for the website searched .