The global credit crunch has left a handful of banks holding almost $22bn (£10.7bn) of private equity financing as investor appetite dries up amid increasingly jittery credit markets.


A Chrysler Sebring. The private equity group Cerberus insisted that its buyout of the car giant stayed on track

Two major and closely followed debt sales on both sides of the Atlantic were postponed yesterday - a further blow to investor confidence that threatens to put the brakes on the long-running mergers and acquisition boom.

Bankers to private equity firm KKR struggled to sell on debt that was used to finance the purchase of Alliance Boots, the first leveraged buyout of a FTSE100 company. Meanwhile, in the US, JP Morgan was left holding $12bn of debt after failing to offload loans that had been used to finance Cerberus Capital Management's acquisition of Chrysler, the loss-making American car giant.

Both deals join a growing list of at least 35 refinancings that have been postponed or restructured in recent weeks.

The International Monetary Fund warned yesterday that "risks have increased and credit markets could remain volatile in the period ahead with a further repricing of some credit products".

It said that it did not yet fear a major "credit crunch" was likely, with the risk contained to certain parts of the markets. However, it added that the problems in the troubled US sub-prime mortgage market looked to be worsening.

The eight banks holding the Alliance Boots debt, including Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan, managed to sell £1.75bn of it. But they were forced to sell the debt at a 4pc-5pc discount, reducing the fees they collected on the deal. The new owners of Alliance Boots - KKR and billionaire Stefano Pessina - will pay between 0.25pc and 0.5pc more interest on the debt, which will cost them an additional £2.5m in interest payments a year.

However, the banks were forced to postpone the sale of a further £5bn of Alliance Boots debt. "We will come back when market conditions are a bit more stable," said an executive at one bank.

Private equity group Cerberus insisted that its buyout of Chrysler remained on track, despite having to postpone the sale of $12bn in debt needed to finance the deal.

Cerberus was seeking $20bn in loans - with $12bn earmarked for Chrysler's carmaking operations and a further $8bn to fund its finance businesses once it is separated from Daimler, which is transferring the company to Cerberus debt-free.

The underwriting banks - led by JP Morgan with Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley -have been marketing the loans to institutional investors since late June, but recent turmoil in the credit markets has left investors with scant appetite for the loans.

Abandoning the planned sale means banks will now keep the $10bn of loans for the auto unit on their balance sheets until a later date. Daimler and Cerberus itself will buy the remaining $2bn.

Figures suggest June was the worst month in two years for junk bonds and risky corporate loans, and prices have continued sliding for much of July as investors have become more risk-averse.


See Original Article


If you are concerned about debts then contact the experts. We help more businesses a month then any other company and we aim to help you, not your creditors.

Call us now: 0800 071 1616

Email: info@debtsgone.co.uk

Website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

The increasingly shaky state of householders' finances will be laid bare next week as Britain's top five banks report huge increases in bad debts.

City analysts expect them to declare that they have set aside a pot of £6.6 billion to deal with customers who can not pay loans and mortgages.

At the same time, official statistics from the Department of Justice are expected to show a jump in the number of houses being repossessed, with submissions to take back homes jumping from 78,000 in 2004 to 132,000 in 2006.

Insolvencies could also hit a record next week when the quarterly figures are released. In the first three months of the year 300 people a day were declared bankrupt or entered insolvency arrangements.

See Original Article

If you need friendly debt advice then call us now. We aim to help you.

Call us on: 0800 071 1616

Email: info@debtsgone.co.uk

Website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

The number of bankrupts in Britain has soared, with 20,000 people filing for bankruptcy between April and June alone, say insolvency experts.

The figure, expected to be confirmed in new Government statistics this week, is 10 per cent up on the total of 18,000 for the first three months of the year.

Rising taxes and interest rates are blamed for the increase. Mark Sands, the head of personal insolvency at the auditor KPMG, said: "At a time when wages are rising relatively modestly, families have faced five interest rate rises in a year, and huge increases in utility bills and council tax. The level of financial distress is alarming, and we are seeing more and more people crying out for help."

the Sunday Telegraph can also reveal that more than 420,000 were prosecuted for defaulting on loan repayments in the first half of the year - an 8 per cent rise on the same period in 2006.

Next week, the top five banks are also expected to report a £6.6 billion increase in bad debt.

With interest rates predicted to break through the 6 per cent barrier next month, MPs and experts united to condemn the Government for failing to deal with soaring levels of debt.

Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat deputy leader, said: "This Government has consistently overlooked what is for many a very serious and deteriorating problem."

The Citizens Advice Bureau dealt with more than 1.4 million new cases of debt last year, up 11 per cent on 2005. It said debt enquiries had risen "remorselessly" and lenders were not making the checks needed to ensure that people could afford to take on more credit.

Neville Kahn, an insolvency partner at Deloitte, said: "The vast array of lenders means it is far too easy for people to overstretch themselves.

"But in the second half of the year, I expect it will become more difficult for people to spend their way out of trouble."

See Original Article


If you are concerned that Bankruptcy is your only option and would like to talk to someone who understands then call us now. We aim to help you find the best solution for you.

Call Us Now: 0800 071 1616

Email: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See Our Website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

LONDON (Reuters) - Alliance Boots has postponed syndication of the 5.05 billion pounds of senior debt backing its leveraged buyout, Europe's largest ever, a source familiar with the situation told Reuters Loan Pricing Corp. (RLPC) on Wednesday.

The company, which is being bought by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co and deputy chairman Stefano Pessina for 11.1 billion pounds, is pressing ahead with the syndication of 1.75 billion pounds of second-lien and mezzanine debt at steep discounts, with responses on these tranches due by Friday, the source said.

"Market conditions drove our decision to withdraw the senior (debt) at this time", the source said.

The turbulent European leveraged loan market is experiencing record volatility, which is causing a market-wide repricing as investors reassess risk and return.

The Boots loan is the third and by far the largest European leveraged loan to be postponed due to credit market turmoil. A loan for Dutch DIY retailer Maxeda was pulled in mid-July, and German publisher Springer decided not to proceed with a dividend recapitalisation in light of current market conditions.

Boots's 1 billion pound second-lien loan will be offered at 96 percent of face value with an interest margin of 425 basis points (bps), up 25 basis points from the original level, the source said. The loan cannot be called for two years, as before.

The 750 million pound mezzanine tranche will be offered at 95 percent, with a margin of 650 bps, up 50 basis points from the original level.

The mezzanine margin is split 300 bps in cash and 350 bps payment in kind, the source said. The loan cannot be called for three years, as before.

ARRANGERS HOLD SENIOR DEBT

The 5.05 billion pounds of senior debt will now be held by the eight banks arranging the loan until market conditions improve.

The loan is being led by global co-ordinators Deutsche Bank , JP Morgan and UniCredit (HVB) and Barclays Bank , Citigroup , Bank of America , Merrill Lynch , and Royal Bank of Scotland .

"The senior debt has been withdrawn until some future date. The underwriters will hold the senior debt for now. We are very comfortable with it," the source said.

"We will revisit it at the right time. Who knows when that will be," the source said.

The arranging banks had presented a range of options to Boots investors earlier this week, with similar margins but a smaller discount, banking sources said. The margin increases are paid for by sponsor KKR, while the arranging banks finance the discount.

The senior debt was previously offered with a margin of 300 basis points and a discount of 99. The second lien was offered at 425 bps and a 98.50 discount, and the mezzanine was offered at 650 bps and a 98 discount, banking sources said.

The arrangers said the mezzanine tranche was now more or less complete and the second lien had a substantial order book.

"We have a strong bid for the junior tranches and wanted to bifurcate the distribution," the source said.

The current crop of bull market loans that are now under revision on both sides of the Atlantic after encountering market turbulence are littering arranging banks' balance sheets as liquidity ebbs from the loan market.

This is creating exposure issues and losses for banks that mark positions to market, and may affect banks' ability to underwrite new business in the short term, banking sources said.


See Original Article



If you are concerned about insolvency then call the experts. We offer a friendly and impartial service aimed to help you.

Call us now on: 0800 071 1616

Email us at: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See Our Website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

The City is bracing itself for more bad news on bad debts from HSBC when it announces its half-year results tomorrow, amid fears that the crisis in sub-prime lending in the US has spread to other parts of its loan portfolio.
Antony Broadbent, banking analyst at Sanford Bernstein, expects the bank to warn that there has been an increase in bad debts in its unsecured lending book. He is forecasting provisions against its US personal financial services business of $3.3bn (£1.6bn) in the first half of the year. While that is lower than the $4.6bn charge in the second half of 2006, that figure included a $1.8bn exceptional write-off against sub-prime loans to borrowers with poor credit records. Excluding that, his forecast implies a 17 per cent increase in provisions for the division.

This comes as other banks are reporting lower bad debt charges. Barclays said in a statement accompanying its new offer for Dutch bank ABN Amro last week that its impairment charges had fallen by 9 per cent to just under £1bn and chief executive John Varley indicated last week that it would have met its targets for cutting bad debts on its Barclaycard credit card business.
Analysts are looking for signs that the wholesale banking businesses of Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland in particular have been affected by the turmoil in the financial markets last week. Barclays said that its BarCap increased profits by 34 per cent in the first half of the year and Varley indicated that the looming credit crunch had had no impact.

· The chief executive of the British Bankers' Association, Angela Knight, has claimed that a legal case could spell the end of free banking in the UK. The Office of Fair Trading and eight high-street banks went to court on Friday, in an effort to end the uncertainty surrounding what consumer groups have been describing as illegal, excessive bank charges on those who exceed their overdraft limits.

'Let's suppose that a judge comes to a conclusion and restricts dramatically every fee and charge. That is the time at which the current fee structure would have to change,' she said.


See Original Article


If your company is struggling with debts and you would like advice on how to deal with it before it becomes too late then call us now. We specialise in keeping you trading.

Call us now on: 0800 071 1616

Email Us At: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See Our Website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

Taipei (Dpa) - Taiwan's electronics giant BenQ Corp Wednesday rejected lawsuits by the insolvency administrator of BenQ Mobile seeking million-dollar payments BenQ allegedly owes BenQ Mobile.

'BenQ was informed that Martin Prager, the insolvency administrator of BenQ Mobile, has filed two lawsuits against BenQ in a Munich court, claiming payments of about 1.2 million euros (1.5 million US dollars) and about 68.9 million euros (89.5 million US dollars) respectively, BenQ said in a statement.

'The lawsuits arose from certain account payables made by BenQ Mobile to BenQ in 2006. BenQ believes the payments were paid as ordinary payments for goods sold. BenQ is questioning whether BenQ Mobile has a legal basis to make the claim and has retained legal counsel to handle the litigations. It is the preliminary assessment of counsel that the evidence put forward by Mr Prager to support the lawsuits appears to be relatively weak,' it said.

'BenQ reserves the right to hold the IA of BenQ Mobile accountable for any action taken or statement made without legal basis which damages the goodwill and interests of BenQ,' it said.

The statement said that the spin-off of BenQ's branding business from its OEM business was proceeding smoothly, and the litigation would not have an impact on BenQ's finances.

BenQ made international headlines when it bought the loss-making cellphone unit of Siemens in 2005 to form BenQ Mobile to design the Siemens-Ben line of cell phones. Siemens allowed BenQ to use its brand to make cellphones for five years.

But in September 2006, BenQ stopped investing in BenQ Mobile, citing losses of 840 million euros (1.1 billion US dollars) on delays in new models, causing BenQ Mobile to file for bankruptcy and throwing its 3,000 staff out of work.

On March 21, 2007, 4,350 creditors of Benq Mobile met in Munich to prepare to claim 1.2 billion euros (1.6 billion dollars) in compensation from BenQ. Creditors include BenQ Mobile employees and Brazilian soccer star Ronaldo, who appeared in a 2005 TV commercial promoting BenQ Mobile.

BenQ denied that it had any responsibility to the overseas creditors.

See Original Article

If you are concerned that your creditors are chasing your company into administration or worse then call us now before it's too late. We can help reduce the load to a manageable level and keep you trading.

Call us now on: 0800 071 1616

Email us at: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See Our Website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

The credit crunch sweeping the international markets claimed its latest victim as Cadbury Schweppes delayed the £7 billion-plus sale of its US drinks arm just days before it was due to enter the final stages.

The maker of Dr Pepper and Snapple drinks described the leveraged debt markets as suffering "extreme volatility in recent days" as its extended the timetable for the deal.

Final bids were originally due next week, according to sources, who said Cadbury's would now wait until market conditions had settled sufficiently to enable the buyers to raise debt funding to back their purchase.

"It's the volatility of it; it's hard for them to pin the financing down, it puts them in a crunch situation," one source said.

To all intents and purposes, the debt markets have shut down this week, with bankers and fund managers worried about the risk of suffering losses as the crisis in sub-prime mortgages spreads to the wider credit markets. One hedge fund manager this week said the market "sensed there is blood in the water".

"A decision has been taken to extend the sale timetable to allow bidders to complete their proposals against a more stable debt financing market," Cadbury's said.

Sources said Cadbury's was not under timing pressure to complete the sale, first unveiled in mid-March.

First-round bids for the high-profile sale were submitted in mid-June, with around a dozen potential buyers moving forward into the second round.

Now, just two consortia remain in the process, although Cadbury said interest was still "strong" and suggested there was still a chance more buyers might emerge.

Bain Capital Partners, Thomas H Lee Partners and Texas Pacific Group are members of one consortium, while Blackstone, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Lion Capital make up the second.

See Original Article

If credit problems can affect a large company then the effects are even more serious for smaller companies. If you company is struggling with debts and you would like some help then call us now.

Call us on: 0800 071 1616

Email Us At: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See our website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

Responding to claims from Northern Rock that their recent surge in bad debts is a consequence of debtors being put into unsuitable IVAs, Nick O’Reilly, Vice President of R3- The Association of Business Recovery Professionals- said:

‘I find it staggering that Northern Rock are seeking to lay the blame for their poor lending decisions at the door of IVA providers. Insolvency Practitioners don’t lend the money and they don’t spend it. They offer a solution to help people sort out their debt problems.

Insolvency Practitioners who oversee IVAs are highly regulated professionals who do not, as a matter or course, recommend solutions to debtors which would be unsuitable. I will be writing to Northern Rock asking for evidence of their claims that 9 out of 10 people have been recommended IVAs that are not in their interests’

An IVA (Individual Voluntary Agreement) is a statutory measure which allows debtors to put a proposal to their creditors for final satisfaction of their debts. IVAs require creditors to freeze the interest on debt, stop harassment from creditors and their agents and unusually mean that debtors can keep their homes.

Nick continued:

“What is most worrying, from R3’s perspective, is that blanket refusals of IVAs will mean that more people are forced into bankruptcy- and that means the loss of the family home for debtors or debt management plans which don’t freeze interest and can last for years longer than an IVA. Forcing debtors to choose between a roof over their head or a lifetime of slaving to pay back debt is deeply unfair”

See Original Article


If you are concerned about debts and would like to talk to someone who understands then please call us now:

Phone: 0800 071 1616

Email: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See Our Website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

Underlying conditions in the consumer debt market continue to move in favour of Invocas, the Aim-listed firm told shareholders yesterday.

Shares in Invocas rose 9p to 127.5p after chairman Howard Bell said the recent industry agreement to reduce fees for individual voluntary arrangements (IVAs) for debtors in England and Wales did not impact directly on Invocas, the market leader in Protected Trust Deeds North of the border.

However, he went on: "This all points towards the need to work with lenders to develop high quality, long-term, sustainable insolvency solutions which deliver good returns to creditors in a sensible time frame.

advertisement
"Our chosen market positioning and existing business model already puts us in a good position to benefit from changes in the dynamics of our sector.

Invocas already works in partnership with banks in the Insolvency Exchange, which is negotiating the IVA fees.

Bell added: "We are actively pursuing our strategy of broadening the range of our services by the acquisition of complementary businesses and by the in-house development of additional debt solution services."

He said referrals from new affinity partners and business from the group's new call centre and website were delivering increasing numbers of leads and steady revenue opportunities.

See Original Article

If you are concerned about insolvency in your company and would like friendly advice then call us now. We're here to keep you trading.

Call us now on: 0800 071 1616

Email us now: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See our website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

One in six people in Britain claim that their debts are causing them difficulties, according to R3 – The Association of Business Recovery Professionals, who represent 97% of the country’s Insolvency Practitioners. Of those surveyed with the worst debt problems, 21% say illness is a factor, and 33% highlight redundancy. Over half of 18 – 24 year olds have student debt that they are servicing, and one in three of 25 – 34 year olds are still paying off student debt.

However, many adults simply say that easy access to credit, overspending and a desire to buy cars, take holidays or have what they want when they want it are the factors behind the meteoric rise in Britain’s indebtedness.

These preliminary findings are part of an R3-sponsored survey of British attitudes to debt, carried out by market research experts YouGov. Every quarter, the public will be comprehensively surveyed about the levels of their mortgage and non-mortgage debt. Their attitudes to debt will be recorded across the population as a whole and comparisons made against age, earning power, gender and social grade. Each quarter a debt index will be produced which will show the level of mortgage and non-mortgage debt against average gross personal income.

Commenting on the R3 debt index, the President of R3, insolvency lawyer Patricia Godfrey said: “ Our members see the misery that high levels of debt can cause, as it is our Insolvency Practitioners who pick up the pieces when the debt become unbearable. What we will be producing here is a barometer of the increasing indebtedness across Britain. It will provide us with an important insight into the underlying causes of the burden of debt, and changing attitudes towards it.”

See Original Article

If you are concerned about being in debt and would like advice and help then call Debtsgone now.

Call us now on: 0800 071 1616

Email us at: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See our website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

The administrators sifting through the debris following Metronet Rail's spectacular plunge into insolvency last week moved quickly to reassure staff and suppliers that it would be business as usual while it sought to transfer the companies activities to another operating company.

Existing contracts
Speculation is rife as to who that new operator will be. Transport for London (TfL) has a number of choices. One option is for TfL to take over the management of Metronet's existing PPP contracts with Trans4M, a joint venture of Metronet shareholders Atkins, Balfour Beatty, Bombardier, EDF Energy, and Thames Water. Certainly Atkins and Balfour Beatty seem amenable to this solution.

An Atkins spokeswoman said: "The administrator could decide that although the contract was wrong, the people were right. However, whether that happens will depend on the administrator. Certainly in the short term the contracts will have to remain in place. We want to ensure as orderly a handover as possible and, if work were to stop, it could end in chaos."

Balfour Beatty echoed this view. "Certainly in terms of our track replacement programme, whatever the new ownership structure, it would be a brave decision to decide to take Balfour out of the equation, considering we have all the staff, equipment and know-how there already."

However, he added that Balfour's appetite to remain on the stations upgrade programme, which had been at the heart of Metronet's claims for £2bn cost overruns, "was not high".

If Balfour Beatty is replaced, as seems likely, on the PPP stations upgrade programme, there will be no shortage of contenders for the work. In pole position are the four contractors - Cleshar Contract Services, Costain, Taylor Woodrow and YJL Infrastructure - that Metronet recently took onboard to help speed up its delayed stations upgrade programme. A source at one of the four firms said: "We would be more than capable of widening our remit on the stations upgrade programme."

However, Mayor of London Ken Livingstone suggested that station upgrades may have to be delayed in favour of track and signalling work.

Alternatives
Some of Metronet's workload could also be transferred to TfL's Alternative Provider framework. Set up last year, the framework consists of Taylor Woodrow Construction, Birse Metro and Morgan Est (formerly Gleeson MCL). Its brief was to cover upgrade work outside of the PPP contracts and to provide a way of benchmarking the PPP infracos' work. The framework was so successful that TfL last month announced plans for another nine supplier frameworks, ostensibly to cover its £2.8bn capital works programme. Some observers say there was always a wider agenda. One said: "The timetable for these supplier frameworks picked up this year. The view is these are all part of TfL's contingency plans, which it put together this year when it realized how bad things were at Metronet."

Another format TfL could adopt is the type of partnership it has with Hong Kong firm MTR and Laing, which recently took over the operation of the North London railway, now rebadged the London Overground. The deal includes the £1bn rebuilding of the East London Tube Line. Unlike the PPP contracts, TfL retains much greater control over the contract.

See Full Article


If you are concerned about corporate insolvency and would like to speak to a company specialising in corporate recovery then drop us a line now. We aim to help you manage the debts and remain in control of your company.

Call us now on: 0800 071 1616

Email us at: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See our website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

There has been much discussion as to the scope of the decision of the House of Lords in Melville Dundas v Wimpey and how it will come to be applied by lower courts. Guidance has now been given by the decision of the TCC in Pierce Design v Johnston.

There were similarities and differences between Melville Dundas and Pierce Design.

Both concerned JCT 1998 wording.
In both cases the employer sought to rely on a contractual right to suspend payment following the determination of the contractor’s employment. The relevant wording of the suspensive clauses under both contracts was the same.
However, the contractor’s employment in Melville Dundas was determined owing to its insolvency. In contrast, in Pierce Design the basis for termination was contractor default.
In Pierce Design a number of the contractor’s interim payment applications had been short paid for a considerable period, seemingly because the employer was not satisfied with the contractor’s performance. Yet withholding notices were not issued by the employer.

Decision

HHJ Coulson QC applied Melville Dundas v Wimpey and held that the provision of the JCT 1998 form (clause 27.6.5.1) which permitted the suspension of payment in the event of the contractor’s employment being determined for default was not inconsistent with the Construction Act. The judge pointed out that the House of Lords had upheld the very clause that was in dispute. The fact that the contractor’s employment had been determined for default, not insolvency, was not a basis for holding the clause to be inconsistent with section 111 of the Construction Act.

As a twist, HHJ Coulson QC held, however, that the clause in question did not permit payment to be suspended for certain amounts which the employer had "unreasonably not paid". On the facts of this case, the employer had short-paid the contractor on a number of occasions more than 28 days before determination, without issuing withholding notices where they could and ought to have been issued. This conduct was unreasonable, so the employer could not rely on the clause to suspend payment of amounts that fell due a long time ago. The fact that the employer claimed it had an overtopping counterclaim at the date of trial made no difference.

Comment

Some commentators have suggested that Melville Dundas v Wimpey would only apply in cases where a contractor’s employment had been determined for insolvency, so that amounts that were due before insolvency would no longer be due. Pierce Design indicates that the position is broader, and that provisions entitling an employer to suspend payment upon contract determination are not invalid where the basis for determination is contractor default.

What remains to be seen is whether Melville Dundas v Wimpey applies in circumstances where a construction contract has not been determined, i.e. a project is still "live" as between employer and contractor, and valid withholding notices have not been issued.

Reference: Pierce Design International Ltd v Johnston [2007] EWHC 1691 (TCC)http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2007/1691.html Interested in adjudication and construction issues? Take a look at our online facilities dedicated to adjudication cases and construction issues.

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.


See Original Article

If you are concerned about insolvency in your company then call us now. We can help to reduce the debts to a manageable level and keep you in control.

Call us now on: 0800 071 1616

Email us: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See our website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

In non-legal contexts, a judgment is a balanced weighing up of evidence preparatory to making a decision. A formal process of evaluation applies. A judgment may be expressed as a statement, e.g. S1: 'A is B' and is usually the outcome of an evaluation of alternatives. The formal process of evaluation can sometimes be described as a set of conditions and criteria that must be satisfied in order for a judgment to be made. What follows is a suggestive list of some conditions that are commonly required:

there must be corroborating evidence for S1,
there must be no true contradicting statements,
if there are contradicting statements, these must be outweighed by the corroborating evidence for S1, or
contradicting statements must themselves have no corroborating evidence
S1 must also corroborate and be corroborated by the system of statements which are accepted as true.
One should be cautious in attributing, without a rigorous analysis, a rigid set of criteria to all forms of judgment. Often this results in unnecessary restrictions to judgment methodologies, excluding what may otherwise be considered legitimate judgments. For analogous difficulties in science and the scientific method see the Wikipedia entry on the scientific method.

From the criteria mentioned above, we could judge that "It is raining" if there are raindrops hitting the window, if people outside are using umbrellas, and if there are clouds in the sky. Someone who says that despite all this, it is not raining, but cannot provide evidence for this, would not undermine our judgment.

However, if they demonstrated that there was a sophisticated projection and audio system to produce the illusion of our evidence, then we would probably reconsider our judgment. However, we would not do this lightly, we would demand evidence of the existence of such a system. Then it would need to be decided again upon available new evidence whether or not it was raining.

Many forms of judgment, including the above example, require that they be supported by, and support, known facts which are themselves well supported, and its negation must be shown to be unfounded, before it is accepted as well founded.


Legal use
In the United States, under the rules of civil procedure governing practice in federal courts and most state courts, the entry of judgment is the final order entered by the court in the case, leaving no further action to be taken by the court with respect to the issues contested by the parties to the lawsuit. With certain exceptions, only a final judgment is subject to appeal.


Types of judgment in law
Consent judgment, a final, binding judgment in a case in which both parties agree, by stipulation, to a particular outcome
Declaratory judgment, a judgment of a court in a civil case which declares the rights, duties, or obligations of each party in a dispute
Default judgment, a binding judgment in favor of the plaintiff when the defendant has not responded to a summons
Summary judgment, a legal term which means that a court has made a determination without a full trial
Vacated judgment, the result of the judgment of an appellate court which overturns, reverses, or sets aside the judgment of a lower court
Value judgment, a judgment of the rightness or wrongness of something

Spelling
The spelling judgment is found in the Authorized Version of the Bible. However, the spelling judgement (with e added) largely replaced judgment in the United Kingdom in a non-legal context, possibly because writing dg without a following e for the /dʒ/ was seen as an incorrect spelling. In the context of the law, however, judgment is preferred. In the U.S. judgment strongly prevails. As with many such spelling differences, both forms are equally acceptable in Canada and Australia, although judgment is more common in Canada and judgement in Australia.[1] In New Zealand the form judgment is the preferred spelling in dictionaries, newspapers and legislation, although the variant judgement can also be found in all three categories. In South Africa, judgement is the more common form. See further at American and British English spelling differences.


See Original Article

If you are concerned about receiving a judgement because of insolvency/debt then call us now. We can help reduce your debts and get you back in control.

Call us now on: 0800 071 1616

Email us at: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See us on the web: www.debtsgone.co.uk

Britian is headed for financial meltdown with the number of couples declaring themselves insolvent set to triple between now and 2010, new research has claimed.

Around 13,000 couples in England and Wales applied for insolvency in 2006, 165% more than in 2004.

But the figure could rise even further to 50,000 by 2010, according to a report by the Manchester Business School for accountancy firm Haines Watts IVA.

At the same time, the level of debt built up by couples who have declared themselves bankrupt or taken out an individual voluntary arrangement (IVA) has more than doubled - from £21,000 in 2004 to over £42,000 last year.

Dr Sydney Howell, at Manchester Business School, said: "Some of these couples, especially those in their early 30s, are facing a future with no pension, no savings and huge debts.

"Rising house prices and interest rates, ever-increasing living costs and wages that have not kept up with inflation have all produced crippling debts and left more and more people turning either to bankruptcy or insolvency as their only way out."

Gill Wrigley, insolvency practitioner for Haines Watts, said the group had seen an increasing number of couples applying for IVAs, particularly during the past 12 months.

She said couples accounted for just 10% of the group's clients in 2002, but the figure had now grown to 40% and showed no sign of reducing.

She said: "Young couples, typically those turning 30 are vulnerable because they are in a transitional life-stage where they are settling down, buying a house and wanting to start a family, but still also spending a high proportion of their income on social activities."


See Original Article

If you are concerned about being insolvent and would like help before it becomes serious then call the experts. We specialise in Corporate Recovery and can help keep your business trading.

Call us now on: 0800 071 1616

Email Us Now: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See Our Website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

LONDON (Reuters) - Major high street banks will settle for a 20 percent cut in fees for individual voluntary arrangements (IVA), says the firm representing them, to end a dispute with the companies that charge them for setting them up.

IVAs are alternatives to bankruptcy for consumers who owe banks a large amount of money -- often as much as 50,000 pounds. Consumers agree to pay back a portion of the debt over five years, with the rest written off, while IVA firms charge banks for setting up and administering the complex arrangements.

"The average amount that fees will come down by is around 20 percent," said Mark Onyett, chief executive of TDX Group, which runs the Insolvency Exchange.

The Insolvency Exchange represents major banks including HBOS , HSBC and Royal Bank of Scotland and decides whether to approve IVAs on their behalf.

"It's important to point out these proposals haven't been agreed by the IVA industry yet but if this is what the banks want we would be quite thrilled," said Michael Shirley, Operations Director at IVA firm Debtmatters .

"People had been saying they wanted to knock off 40 percent from the IVA fees... it appears a compromise has been reached."

The average fee will come down to around 5,200 pounds, before VAT, from 6,600 pounds, Onyett said.

The news was welcomed by investors who had feared the fees could be slashed even further.

IVA firms whose shares had been hit hard in recent months, partly because of worries over fees, saw an immediate uplift. Shares in Accuma rose 38 percent, Debtmatters 11 percent and largest industry player Debt Free Direct by 7 percent.

"I think people had been worried things could be worse," said Onyett.

The Mail on Sunday had previously reported in May the fees were to be capped at 4,500 pounds, which sent shares in IVA firms down by as much as 10 percent.

The proposals for fees and IVA structure will mean a decrease in the number of IVAs rejected by the Insolvency Exchange, possibly by half, according to Onyett. The Insolvency Exchange decides whether to approve around 60 to 70 percent of the IVAs proposed by the industry in total.

The new criteria are expected to bring an end to the feud between banks and IVA firms which has seen banks reject up to 20 percent of proposed IVA schemes in the last eight months.

"Under the new arrangement there's a shift away from a large upfront fee and a fixed supervisory fee to a smaller upfront fee and a performance-based fee on the back end," said Onyett.

IVA firms will get paid depending on the amount of debt they get back from consumers rather than a set "supervisory" fee for administering an IVA.

The IVA firms will have to distribute collected money to creditors within six months and on a monthly basis thereafter, whereas previously the payments were annual and the first often did not happen until the third year, according to the Insolvency Exchange.

IVA firms have also been working with the British Bankers' Association and an ad hoc forum called the Debt Resolution Forum on a consensus to stop disputes over IVA fees and structure.




See Original Article

If you are struggling with debt then call the experts, we specialise in helping you and not your creditors.

Call us now on: 0800 071 1616

Email us at: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See Our Website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

Yesterday the Insolvency Exchange (TIX) proudly announced and boasted the rollout of a "major package of changes to the acceptance criteria for Individual Voluntary Arrangements." While you have to applaud the TIX group for not being bashful about coming forward, you've got to wonder how they can be so proud about changes that do nothing to fix the real problem of consumers getting screwed in IVA reforms which only benefit creditors.

I don't think it is an unreasonable expectation that as a society we shoot for fairness and balance as the target in resolving problems. But I would be dumbstruck if someone would be able to come forward to say that the recently announced IVA reforms benefit consumers in the least.

The current trouble with the IVA marketplace is that creditors are not properly considering fair, reasonable and sustainable binding repayment proposals from consumers in financial trouble. Many creditors in the UK today would rather inflict pain and agony into the lives of consumers struggling enormous financial pressure, by rejecting their IVA repayment proposals, than extend a helpful hand to resolve the problem.

The situation today is so bad that it is almost as if the creditors are putting a boot to the face of the consumer sinking into debt quicksand while at the same time holding a placard that reads "I'm Here to Help."

The Insolvency Exchange press release goes on to say that "the changes will benefit all parties associated with an IVA", but does it really? While it might give you a warm fuzzy feeling to think that these changes make the world a safer and happier place to live, they don't, at least for consumers.

These recently announced changes are all designed to benefit one party, not all as proclaimed. And in case you haven't received your invitation in the post, the party is at the creditor's house.

Forcing insolvency practitioners (IPs) to adopt new and expensive processes and procedures to provide "operational efficiencies" only serves the creditors in their desire to ram fee reductions down the throat of IPs.

You see what the Insolvency Exchange release fails to mention is that creditors are treating UK consumers with contempt and disgust when it comes to allowing people to repay their debt is a fair, reasonable and sustainable way. Operational efficiencies are great for reducing processing costs but that's not where the problems in the IVA marketplace today, unless you are a creditor.

The elephant in the room that nobody can see is the fact that creditors are arbitrarily rejecting fair repayment proposals from consumers, even though the person is making their best effort to repay, simply because the creditor created a line in the sand of requiring at least a certain rate of return that make the creditor gleeful. And if that can't be done, the repayment proposal is rejected and the consumer is told to tuck their tail between their legs and go away.

Creditors are boasting that these ridiculous and grossly unfair policies are working because they can't see a large increase in people going bankrupt after their IVA repayment proposal is rejected. I can only assume that creditors feel that they've batted away the consumer from entering a fair and binding repayment arrangement, only to toss them back into the mass of consumers financially limping along towards the quagmire of debt.

In an ongoing survey about IVAs that is being conducted at http://iva.questionpro.com , people are responding that they would seek other options if their IVA proposal was rejected. When asked "If you propose an IVA to repay your debt and your creditors do not accept your proposal, which of the following options would you consider to resolve your financial problems?" Respondents gave the following responses: Borrow money from a friend or family member - 0%, Enter an informal debt management plan. - 35.71%, Bankruptcy - 42.86%, or Do nothing for now and evaluate my options latter. - 21.43%.

The current crisis in IVAs is not if processors or IPs have "operational efficiencies" but that consumers are not being treated fairly according to codes established by the Financial Services Authority, or the Banking Code proudly promoted by the British Bankers Association.


See Full Article


If you are concerned about insolvency issues then call us now. We are happy to listen to your needs and answer any questions. Our aim is to keep you on your feet.

Call us now on: 0800 071 1616

Email Us Now On: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See Us On The Web: www.debtsgone.co.uk

The number of individual insolvencies looks set to triple between now and 2010, as rising interest rates start to bite, research claimed yesterday.

Around 13,000 couples in England and Wales applied for insolvency in 2006, 165 per cent more than in 2004.

advertisementBut the figure could rise even further to 50,000 by 2010, according to a report by the Manchester Business School for accountancy firm Haines Watts.

At the same time, the level of debt built up by couples who have declared themselves bankrupt or taken out an individual voluntary arrangement (IVA) has more than doubled - from £21,000 in 2004 to over £42,000 last year.

Dr Sydney Howell, at Manchester Business School, said: “Some of these couples, especially those in their early 30s, are facing a future with no pension, no savings and huge debts.

“Rising house prices and interest rates, ever-increasing living costs and wages that have not kept up with inflation have all produced crippling debts and left more and more people turning either to bankruptcy or insolvency as their only way out.”

Earlier this year, Government figures showed that a record number of 300 people a day were being declared insolvent or bankrupt.

The statistics showed that in the first three months of the year 16,842 people went bankrupt while 13,233 opted for an IVA, which is seen as a softer form of bankruptcy because the debtor is allowed to keep their home.

The figures are expected to have increased last quarter as interest rates push an increasing number of people into financial difficulties.

Gill Wrigley, insolvency practitioner for Haines Watts, said the group had seen an increasing number of couples applying for IVAs, particularly during the past 12 months.

She said couples accounted for just 10 per cent of the group’s clients in 2002, but the figure had now grown to 40 per cent and showed no sign of reducing.

She said: “Young couples, typically those turning 30 are vulnerable because they are in a transitional life-stage where they are settling down, buying a house and wanting to start a family, but still also spending a high proportion of their income on social activities.”

Professor Muir Hunter, an author on debt, said: “The worry is that people are spending all this money on credit cards without building up any solid assets.”


See Original Article

If you are concerned about insolvency and would like friendly and impartial advice then call us now. We specialise in helping people get back on their feet.

Call us now on: 0800 071 1616

Email Us At: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See Our Website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

Ken Bates and his solicitor, Mark Taylor, may have breached insolvency law by acting as directors of Leeds United Football Club Limited, the new company formed to buy the club out of administration, according to HM Revenue and Customs.
The Guardian has learned that one of the grounds for HMRC's challenge to the Company Voluntary Arrangement which originally approved the sale by the administrators, KPMG, to the new company, was that Bates and Taylor did not have permission from a court to be directors. HMRC believed permission is required because both men were previously directors of a different company, also called Leeds United Football Club Limited, which went into liquidation in June 2006.

According to s216 of the Insolvency Act 1986, anybody who has been a director of a company which has gone into liquidation must obtain the court's permission if he wants to be a director of a new company with a similar name within five years. Trading without obtaining that permission is a criminal offence and anyone prosecuted and found guilty of it is, according to the act, liable to a fine or imprisonment.
KPMG has said it believes an application has been made to the court on behalf of Bates and Taylor but the Insolvency Service, which would be invited to respond to any application, said yesterday it had no notice of one, although there could be a delay in being informed by a court.

The question of whether s216 has been satisfied arises from the original company, Leeds United Football Club Limited, of which Bates and Taylor were directors. It changed its name, to Romans Heavies Limited, on December 2 2005, then on June 6 2006 went into liquidation. As Bates and Taylor had both been directors of the company during the 12 months preceding the liquidation, s216 appears to apply, requiring the court's permission for them to be directors of any company with a similar name within five years. HMRC is understood to have argued in its legal challenge to the Leeds United CVA that Taylor and Bates were in breach of s216 because the court's permission had not been granted.

Neither Taylor nor Bates responded to questions about the alleged breach, so it is not known whether they have omitted to make an application or consider that it is not necessary for them to do so.


See Original Article


If you are concerned about insolvency and what it means to you then call us now. We can help advise the best way to deal with your insolvency and answer any questions you may have.

Call us now at: 0800 071 1616

Email us at: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See our website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

A judge or justice is an official who presides over a court. The powers, functions, method of appointment, discipline, and training of judges vary widely across different jurisdictions.

Judges in the Legal System
There are significant differences between the role of a judge in the common law system descended from British practice, and civil law systems descendant from continental European judicial practice. The descriptions below are necessarily archetypical. Details vary from judicial system to judicial system. In many cases, the judicial systems have experienced convergent evolution, expressly or unconsciously adopting similar practices or operating in a manner that minimizes the impact of formal differences between the archetypical role of each system's judges.

For example, while common law judicial procedure generally contemplates a single evidentiary trial, many cases are actually resolved through testimony taken from witnesses in isolated depositions prior to trial that support written presentations to a judge. Similarly, while civil law judges must have some statutory point of departure for their legal rulings, there are accepted methods of legal reasoning that often afford them greater latitude to fit the law to the circumstances of an unusual case then a stark statement of the underlying principles of the system would suggest. This can serve a purpose similar to the common law method of legal reasoning known as stare decisis.


Judges in common law legal systems
In common law countries, judges usually operate within the adversarial system of justice, and the trial level, usually preside over court proceedings as the sole judge present, with only narrow exceptions (e.g. in the United States, certain election law cases).


Professional Background
Common law judges are generally appointed or elected from among practicing attorneys after prior careers as practicing attorneys, although many receive brief educational programs specific to judging once taking the bench. Judges are frequently drawn from the ranks of barristers, as opposed to solicitors where a distinction is made between the two as separate legal professions.

Many U.S. states permit non-lawyers to serve as justices of the peace or as inferior jurisdiction judges in rural areas, but this practice is generally limited to less serious criminal offenses and small claims. Federal judges are not required by law to be attorneys, but the practice of appointing attorneys to the federal bench is almost universal.


Judges and Juries
In the common law system, when there is a jury trial in the trial courts, the jury generally decides questions of fact (guilty or not guilty, whether a party was negligent, etc.) while a single judge decides questions of law (under common-law systems, one of the judge's most important powers is to craft jury instructions).

In a trial before a judge, sometimes called a "bench trial", a single judge decides issues of both law and fact. Outside the United States, only a very narrow category of civil cases are tried before juries and usually criminal cases are tried before juries only in more serious cases. In the United States, cases where a jury is not available are the exception, rather than the norm, even in relatively minor civil and criminal matters. In United States practice, the right to a jury usually hinges on historical distinctions made between law and equity in Britain prior to the adoption of the United States Constitution.

Because both civil and criminal procedure in common law systems developed in the context of a system where the ultimate decisions were usually deferred to a jury (even though this is often not the case outside the United States in civil cases), common law judges are limited in their power to resolve matters prior to a full trial, even if they have all information that they feel they need to resolve a case involving disputed facts.

Historically, in Europe in the Middle Ages, juries often stated the law by consensus or majority and the judge applied it to the facts as he saw them. This practice no longer exists. The power of juries to determine the law in a manner contrary to that dictated by the trial judge, or even ignore the law (which is often called jury nullification), has been controversial in American jurisprudence from very early on in American history. Generally speaking, current practice in U.S. law is to formally deny that such a power exists. But, U.S. law also maintains procedural protections such as a prohibiting testimony regarding jury deliberations, and disallowing government appeals of acquittals by juries in criminal cases, that have the practical effect of making it possible for juries to make their own determinations of law.

U.S. legal practice also has an institution called a grand jury which is presided over on a day to day basis by a prosecutor, rather than a judge, although it is ultimately under the supervision of a judge. This institution investigates crimes via the subpoena power and screens serious criminal charges to determine if a prosecution is justified.


Appellate Judging
In common law practice, appeals are usually decided by a panel of judges, generally three appellate judges chosen at random in an intermediate appellate court and the entire composition of the court in the relevant highest appellate court in the jurisdiction, although decisions made by a subordinate or inferior jurisdiction judge are sometimes reviewed by a single judge.


Judges in civil law systems
In most civil law jurisdictions with inquisitorial systems, judges go to special schools to be trained after graduating with a law degree from a university; after such training they often become investigating magistrates. However, the inquisitorial system is not used in all civil law jurisdictions; it is primarily in use in countries of Southern Europe that were influenced by Napoleon's Code Napoleon, such as France, Italy, Spain, Portugal etc. In Northern Europe, the adversarial system is predominant in criminal matters. Nevertheless, judges in both Northern and Southern Continental Europe generally do not have backgrounds as practicing attorneys (or advocates), even though they are legally trained.

In the civil law system, serious matters are almost always decided at the trial level by at least three judges, and sometimes more, often in combination with lay persons in serious criminal manners, although one of those judges may take the lead in gathering evidence in a case. In civil law systems typically only the equivalent of U.S. small claims and misdemeanors are handled by a single trial judge.

For example, in Finland and Sweden, there are two kinds of judges in district courts: a legally-trained judge functions as the president of the court, while judges elected for a four-year term from the population, without any special legal training, serve as lay members of the court. Judges in special courts and appellate courts are always legally trained. Lay judges do not function like a common-law jury. In the usual case, three lay judges in district courts hear criminal cases in cooperation with a legally trained judge, each judge – legally trained or not – having an individual vote. However, in some jurisdictions, such as Denmark, criminal cases in severe matters, such as homicide, require a trial by jury, where the jury decides upon the issue of mens rea. Issues of law – and also the assessment of what has factually been proven to have taken place – is the responsility of the judge, who guides the jury by means of a jury instruction. Civil cases, however, are heard exclusively by legally trained judges.

In civil law practice, appeals are usually decided by a panel of multiple judges. State courts can be called district courts. The highest appellate court in a civil law jurisdiction, often translated "supreme court" in English, is typically organized more like an intermediate appellate court in common law practice, in that decisions are usually made by a panel of judges that does not include all judges who are a member of that court. Also unlike common law practice, judges are typically assigned to appeals in the highest appellate court based on specialties in a particular type of law, rather than at random. Typically the only appellate court in a civil law system in which all members of the court will typically decide a case that will operate in a civil law country is the constitutional court, if any.


Non-judges with judicial power
Certain non-judges are vested with judicial power by virtue of their political or religious office, or their position as a responsible government employee.

In Japan, police officers can order punishments for minor offenses without approval from a judge. In U.S. military law, military officers can dispense justice for minor military law infractions without holding a court-martial, and also preside over courts-martial involving more serious offenses. A number of jurisdictions give mayors of municipalities judicial authority similar to a justice of the peace or magistrate. Many courts with probate jurisdiction give court clerks quasi-judicial authority as "registrars" of the court. Members of county commissions and city councils in the United States often have quasi-judicial authority in zoning matters. And, legislators sometimes sit in a judicial capacity, such as when they rule on impeachment charges of governmental officials, and in the United Kingdom, when law lords, who are officially members of the House of Lords, a primarily legislative body, hear appeals in legal cases.

Historically, in the United Kingdom, certain matters, such as annulments of marriages and division of personal property of deceased persons, were the responsibility of ecclesiastical courts, in which clergy presided. Many countries, such as Israel and Pakistan and Iran, continue to have religious courts, particularly in matters of family law, that operate in addition to their ordinary courts with full authority to enter legally binding decisions. Other countries, such as Afghanistan under its newly adopted constitution, have a unitary court system in which some judges have primarily secular training, while others judges have primarily religious training.

Often parties in contractual relationships with each other enter into "arbitration agreements" which vests quasi-judicial authority to resolve disputed between the parties in a non-judge chosen by mutually agreed means. Sometimes these persons are legally trained, and sometimes they are not, but have some relevant subject matter expertise. Civil justice in the Roman Empire, which provided some of the foundational doctrines for Western systems often handled civil disputes through an arbitration-like mechanism. Courts can typically be called upon to enforce a final decision rendered by an arbitrator pursuant to an arbitration agreement if necessary.


Power of judges
In common law countries, such as the United States, and those with roots in the Commonwealth of Nations, judges have a number of powers which are not known to exist, or are not acknowledged to exist, in civil law legal systems, which collectively make the judiciary a more powerful political force than in civil law countries.

One of these powers is the "contempt of court" power. In a common law system, a judge typically has the power to summarily punish with a fine or imprisonment any misconduct which takes place in the courtroom, and to similarly punish violations of the court's orders, after a hearing, when they take place outside the courtroom. This power, in turn, may be used by common law judges to enforce orders for injunctive relief, which is a court order to take or refrain from taking some particular act, directed at the individual who must do so. This power is a vestige of authority that members of the nobility had when they personally presided over disputes between their subjects. It has the effect of giving common law country judges great power to fashion remedies, such as school desegregation orders and restraining orders directed at individuals. Civil law judges, in contrast, outside of specialized courts with narrowly delineated powers, generally lack contempt power or the power to impose injunctive relief.

Another power of every judge in the United States, generally right down to the level of the magistrate, is the power to declare a law unconstitutional and invalid, at least as applied in a particular case. In contrast, most civil law countries limit this power to a special constitutional court, and all other judges are required to follow the enacted laws, even if the judge personally believes those laws to be unconstitutional, in the absence of an order from the constitutional court. However, if a person believes that a law applied against them in court is unconstitutional, they can apply for consideration in the constitutional court and, if the law is indeed declared unconstitutional, file an appeal against the ruling based on the now-invalidated law.

Similarly, in the common law system, cases in which the government administration is at issue, known as public law cases, for example, suits claiming violations of civil rights by government officials, are often heard by the same judges who handle criminal cases and disputes between private individuals. In contrast, in civil law countries, only designated judges or quasi-judges (such as the Conseil d'État in France) can hear public law cases, and ordinary judges can hear only criminal cases and cases involving private parties.

Judges in a common law system are also empowered to make law guided by past precedent, or to choose to ignore past precedent as no longer applicable, based on a concept known as "stare decisis" ("to stand by what has been decided"), in cases where no statute or prior case clearly mandates a particular result, and in cases where past precedents, for some reason, no longer appear to provide firm guidance as to the current state of the law. For example, in a case of "first impression" which has never arisen in a publicly reported case in a state, a judge must choose which rule will apply, usually informed by decisions which have been made in similar cases in other jurisdictions and based on the public policies involved. Judges in civil law systems, in contrast, are strictly forbidden from "making law" and, as a general rule, are not bound by or even encouraged to refer to precedents established in prior similar cases.

Civil law judges, likewise, have some powers not usually held by common law judges. Most importantly, a common law judge is usually required to base a decision almost exclusively on the evidence provided by the parties to a case during the course of a trial, or a hearing, or in documents filed with the court. In contrast, a civil law judge frequently has the authority to investigate the facts of a case independently of evidence provided by the parties to that case, in what is known as an "inquisitorial" role.


Oversight of judges
Federal judges in the United States (except those who have recess appointments) serve life terms for their period of "good behavior." Once appointed, state judges in the United States usually serve terms for a fixed period of years, after which they must be re-elected, face a retention election, or face reappointment by an appropriate authority. The law governing judicial elections in the United States is in flux with the general tendency being to discard historical limitations on the ability of a judge to campaign based upon judicial philosophy.

Most judicial systems in the United States have procedures for investigating breaches of judicial ethics and disability. Lapses of judicial ethics include matters such as taking bribes, open defiance of a binding court order, ruling upon a case in which the judge has a personal interest, failure to account for court funds, failure to conduct court proceedings with a suitably judicial demeanor, harassment of judicial employees or a judge's conviction of a serious offense unrelated to judicial service. Disability complaints often involve allegations that a judge is beginning to show symptoms of alcoholism, dementia or an inability to stay awake.

Complaints about a judge's judicial ethics or disability may ordinarily not contest the merits of the determination made by the judge, which can only be contested in the appellate process. Judges in the United States generally have absolute immunity for personal liability in the form of money damages for their discretionary judicial acts.

Almost every state and the federal government provides the legislature with the authority to remove a judge for cause in a quasi-judicial impeachment proceeding in which the legislative body hears evidence and renders a super-majority verdict limited to removal from office. Often the standard is "high crimes and misdemeanors" or failure to engage in "good behavior" while in office.

Many state judicial systems also have either a special commission or board charged with investigating alleged lapses of judicial ethics or disability, or vest that power in their highest court, usually a state supreme court. Such determinations may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States only to the extent that they involve the final decision of a state court system and pose a federal law question.

Some violations of judicial ethics, such as taking bribes or converting public funds, are also federal or state crimes investigated and prosecuted by the appropriate prosecutor.

In the federal system, there is no outside grievance body with the authority to discipline a U.S. Supreme Court justice. The U.S. Supreme Court has supervisory authority over the entire federal judiciary, in addition to its appellate responsibilities, and it has used this authority to establish certain procedures for investigating and addressing lapses of judicial ethics by federal judges.

In Canada, Justices (Justices of Peace) are appointed provincially to preside over minor cases, while Judges are appointed federally. Neither can be removed from office until they reached the retirement age of 65, 70 or 75 (depending on the type of appointment) unless they are found to have been in serious misconduct, in which case, the House of Commons and Senate (federally appointed) or the Judicial Council (provincially appointed) can pass a motion to remove a judge/justice from office. [1]


Symbols of office
Being a judge is usually a prestigious and solemn position in society. A variety of traditions have become associated with the occupation.


In France, during ordinary hearings, judges wear a black gown.In many parts of the world, judges wear long robes (usually in black or red) and sit on an elevated platform during trials (known as the bench).

In some countries, especially in the Commonwealth of Nations, judges sometimes wear wigs. The long wig often associated with judges is now reserved for ceremonial occasions, although it was part of the standard attire in previous centuries. A short wig resembling but not identical to a barrister's wig would be worn in court. This tradition, however, is being phased out in Britain in non-criminal courts.[1]

American judges frequently wear black robes. American judges have ceremonial gavels, although American judges have court deputies or bailiffs and "contempt of court" power as their main devices to maintain decorum in the courtroom. However, in some Western states, like California, judges did not always wear robes and instead wore everyday clothing. Today, some members of state supreme courts, such as the Maryland Court of Appeals wear distinct dress.

In the People's Republic of China, judges wore regular street clothes until 1984, when they began to wear military-style uniforms, which were intended to demonstrate authority. These uniforms were replaced in 2000 by black robes similar to those worn in the rest of the world.

In Oman, the judge wears a long stripe (Red, Green and White), while the attorneys wear the black gown.


Titles
In the United States, a judge is addressed as "Your Honor" or "Judge" when presiding over the court. The judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the judges of the supreme courts of several U.S. states and other countries are called "justices".

The justices of the supreme courts usually hold higher offices than the justice of the peace, a judge who holds police court in some jurisdictions and who typically tries small claims and misdemeanors. However, the state of New York inverts the usual order, with the Supreme Court of the State of New York being the most important trial court, and the Court of Appeals being the highest court; thus, New York trial judges are called "justices", while the judges on the Court of Appeals are "judges". New York judges who deal with guardianships, trusts and estates are known as "surrogates".

A "senior judge" in U.S. practice, is a retired judge who handles selected cases for a governmental entity while in retirement on a part-time basis.

Subordinate or inferior jurisdiction judges in U.S. legal practice are sometimes called magistrates, although in the federal court of the United States, they are called "magistrate judges". Subordinate judges in U.S. legal practice appointed on a case-by-case basis, particularly in cases where a great deal of detailed and tedious evidence must be reviewed, are often called "masters" or "special masters" and have authority in a particular case often determined on a case by case basis.

Judges of courts of specialized jurisdiction (such as bankruptcy courts or juvenile courts) were sometimes known officially as "referees," but the use of this title is in decline. Judges sitting in courts of equity in common law systems (such as judges in the equity courts of the U.S. State of Delaware) are called "Chancellors".

Individuals with judicial responsibilities who report to an executive branch official, rather than being a part of the judiciary, are often called "administrative law judges" in U.S. practice and commonly make initial determinations regarding matters such as eligibility for government benefits, regulatory matters, and immigration determinations.

Judges who derive their authority from a contractual agreement of the parties to a dispute, rather than a governmental body are called arbitrators, and typically do not receive the honorific forms of address, and do not have the symbolic trappings, of a publicly appointed judge.

In England and Wales (and much of the Commonwealth) judges of the higher courts are addressed as "My Lord" or "My Lady" and referred to as "Your Lordship" or "Your Ladyship". Circuit Judges are addressed as "Your Honour" and all lower judges, magistrates, and chairs of tribunals are addressed as "Sir" or "Madam". Magistrates are still addressed as "Your Worship" in South Africa and Canada, mainly by solicitors, but this practice in other Commonwealth countries is nearly obsolete. Masters of the High Court are addressed as "Master". When a judge of the High Court who is not present is being referred to they are described as "Mr./Mrs. Justice N" (written N J). In the House of Lords, judges are called Law Lords and sit as peers.

In France, the presiding judge of a court is addressed to as "Mr./Mrs. President" (Monsieur le président/Madame le président), in Germany as "Mr./Mrs. Chairman (Herr Vorsitzender/Frau Vorsitzende).


See original Article

If you are concerned that your creditors will put you before a judge then call us now. We will try our best to help you and keep you away from the judge.

Call us now on: 0800 071 1616

Email us at: info@debtsgone.co.u

See our website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

Tube maintenance company Metronet is facing the threat of administration unless a last minute rescue plan can be found, the BBC has learnt.
The firm needs an injection of cash to stay afloat and keep operating, BBC business editor Robert Peston said.

The threat of collapse was triggered by a decision to limit the amount of money Metronet would be given, he added.

Metronet has been under fire since a report found that it would overspend by about £750m on maintenance contracts.

The company, a flagship of the government's Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), which use private sector money to fund state projects, has been embroiled in a battle over who should foot the bill.

"Metronet has been a disaster for its owners, WS Atkins, EDF, Balfour Beatty, Thames Water and Bombardier," the BBC's business editor said.

"Unless there's a last minute intervention by the Treasury this morning, Metronet will go into administration today," Mr Peston added.

The BBC's business editor explained that the latest problems at Metronet had been triggered by a decision of the PPP arbiter to award only a fraction of the cash Metronet said it needed to keep going over the coming year.

The arbiter's role is to ensure that this largest of PPPs delivers value for money.

See Original Article


If you wish to avoid your company going into administration then contact us. We can help keep your company in your control.

Call us: 0800 071 1616

Email us At: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See Us On The Web: www.debtsgone.co.uk

House builders have been accused of "walking away" from developments which flood by an MP who is calling for them to fund flood insurance.

Labour MP Alan Simpson wants developers to pay for insurance for up to 20 years after they build on flood plains.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he will consider the proposal.

But the Home Builders Federation said its members should not have to insure new homes as flood risk is assessed before they get planning permission.

Alan Simpson's proposal would mean house builders taking out an insurance bond in case a development floods after the buyer moves in.

Mr Simpson said thousands of families now face the prospect of their houses being plagued by regular flooding and the struggle to find insurance.

He believes a change in approach by developers is essential to protect home-buyers in the future.

"It would either make them think twice about building on flood plain land or it would make them change the design basis upon which they're built," he told BBC Radio 4's Money Box.

Government figures show that in 2005, 9% of new homes were built in flood risk areas.

Environment Agency statistics show that between 2003 and 2006, 707 developments were approved by local councils against its advice.

Flood defences

The insurance industry is also calling for change.

An agreement with the government means cover should continue to be offered to homeowners even if they live in flood risk areas.

Malcolm Tarling from the Association of British Insurers has warned that if homes are built on flood plains, the government must provide adequate flood defences.

All reasonable risks should be properly assessed and managed at the planning stage

John Slaughter, Home Builders Federation

He said: "The rising risk of flooding means that homes should not be built on the floodplain.

"If they are, and there are no - or inadequate - flood defences in place, then home insurance may be difficult to get or more expensive."

Developers maintain that the pressure for new houses means it is impossible to find sites to build on which are entirely free from the risk of flooding, and the priority is to assess the risk accurately.

John Slaughter from the Home Builders Federation, said planning restrictions are already in place.

"We now have a planning policy for flood risk management which all developers have to apply when they're applying for planning permission," he told the programme.

"All reasonable risks should be properly assessed and managed at the planning stage and we believe that's what the current system will do."

Meanwhile, the government has announced that its flood prevention budget from will increase from £600m to £800m.

See Original Article

If you were affected by the floods and now risk becoming insolvent and would like help and advice then please contact us here at Debtsgone. We will listen to you and make every effort to help.

Call us on: 0800 071 1616

Email us at: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See our website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

LONDON (Reuters) - The number of European companies filing for insolvency will rise as restructuring deals get too complex, making it more difficult to reach an agreement with the parties involved, restructuring professionals said.

Financing behind leveraged buyouts has become ever more intricate in recent years, with the number of layers in the capital structure multiplying to include senior, second-lien, high-yield bonds, mezzanine and subordinated payment-in-kind debt as yield-thirsty investors have sought greater risk exposure.

The investor base has also changed and become more disparate, with a growing number of hedge funds and collateralised loan obligation (CLO) funds taking part in lending, replacing the traditional banks.

"The structures are getting too complicated, it will get to the point that senior creditors just won't talk to the subordinates, they won't give them any value, so we'll see more insolvencies," said Peter Marshall, managing director at Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin, a restructuring advisory firm, during the Distressed Debt conference in London on Thursday.

"Before, you had the senior guys doing the right thing, but going forward, you won't get that," Marshall said.

Schefenacker , a German auto-parts maker, recently completed a restructuring, avoiding insolvency, that took about a year to put together. The deal was reached because "everybody wanted to," Marshall said.

However, British printing company Polestar filed for insolvency earlier this year after negotiations excluded some creditors.

"When you're trying to get consensus, some of these deals are going to blow up," said Tony Alvarez, managing director of restructuring boutique Alvarez & Marsal, during the conference.

See Full Article

If you are concerned that your company is or is becoming insolvent and would like friendly advice on your options then call Debtsgone no on:

0800 071 1616

Or Email us at: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See our website: www.debtsgone.co.uk