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

England's secondary curriculum is being overhauled to "focus on getting the basics right", the government says.
Presenting the changes Schools Secretary Ed Balls said there would be "no dumbing down".

The changes aim to protect traditional aspects of the curriculum but free up a quarter of the day so teachers can focus more on individual students.

Subjects such as personal finance and cookery are likely to be included - plus languages like Mandarin and Urdu.


See Full Article

Helping the next generation to look after themselves is a good idea, but if you need a little help with debt problems and would like some advice then Debtsgone are here to help. We will listen to your situation and work to help you.

Call us now on: 0870 071 1616

Email Us At: info@debtsgone.co.uk

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

Bailiff (from Late Latin bajulivus, adjectival form of bajulus) is a governor or custodian (cf. bail); a legal officer to whom some degree of authority, care or jurisdiction is committed. Bailiffs are of various kinds and their offices and duties vary greatly.

Medieval bailiffs
British Isles
The term was first applied in England to the king's officers generally, such as sheriffs, mayors, etc., and more particularly to the chief officer of a hundred. The county within which the sheriff exercises his jurisdiction is still called his bailiwick, while the term bailiff is retained as a title by the chief magistrates of various towns and the keepers of royal castles, as the high bailiff of Westminster, the bailiff of Dover Castle, etc. Under the manorial system a bailiff was in charge of superintending the cultivation of the manor (see Walter of Henley) .


France
Under the ancien régime in France, the baliy was the king's representative in the bailliage (bailiwick), charged with the application of justice and control of the administration. In southern France, the term generally used was sénéchal who held office in the sénéchaussée.

The administrative network of baillages was established in the 13th century over the king's land (the domaine royal), notably by Philippe Auguste. They were based on the earlier medieval fiscal and tax divisions (the "baillie") which had been used by earlier soverein princes (such as the Duke of Normandy). The creation of the royal bailliages reduced prior existing judicial courts to a subaltern rank; these lower courts were called:

prévôtés royales supervised by a prévôt appointed and paid by the bailli
or (as was the case in Normandy) vicomtés supervised by a vicomte (the position could be held by non-nobles)
or (in parts of northern France) châtellenies supervised by a châtelain (the position could be held by non-nobles)
or, in the south, vigueries or baylies supervised by a viguier or a bayle.
The court or tribunal of the bailliage was presided by a lieutenant général du bailli. Tribunals in bailliages and sénéchaussées were the first court of appeal for lower courts, but the court of first instance for affairs involving the nobility. To appeal their decisions, one turned to the regional parlements. In an effort to reduce the case load in the parlements, certain bailliages were given extended powers by Henri II of France: these were called présidiaux. Bailliages and présidiaux were also the first court for certain crimes (these cases had formerly been under the supervision of the local seigneurs): sacrilege, lèse-majesté, kidnapping, rape, heresy, alteration of money, sedition, insurrections, and the illegal carrying of arms.

By the late 16th century, the role of the "bailli" had become merely honorary, and judicial power was invested solely in the lieutenant général of the bailliage. The administrative and financial role of the bailliages and sénéchaussées declined in the early modern period (superseded by the king's royal tax collectors and regional gouverneurs, and later by the intendants), and by the end of the 18th century, the bailliages, which numbered into the hundreds, served only a judicial function.

In French, a court bailiff is called a "huissier de justice".

Modern bailiffs
British Isles

England
In England, the bailiff of a franchise or liberty is the officer who executes writs and processes, and impanels juries within the franchise. He is appointed by the lord of such franchise (who, in the Sheriffs Act 1887, § 34, is referred to as the bailiff of the franchise).

The bailiff of a sheriff is an under-officer employed by a sheriff within a county for the purpose of executing writs, processes, distraints and arrests. As a sheriff is liable for the acts of his officers acting under his warrant, his bailiffs are annually bound to him in an obligation with sureties for the faithful discharge of their office, and thence are called bound bailiffs. They are also often called bum-bailiffs, or, shortly, bums. The origin of this word is uncertain; the New English Dictionary suggests that it is in allusion to the mode of catching the offender. Special bailiffs are officers appointed by the sheriff at the request of a plaintiff for the purpose of executing a particular process. The appointment of a special bailiff relieves the sheriff from all responsibility until the party is arrested and delivered into the sheriff's actual custody.

By the County Courts Act 1888, it is provided that there shall be one or more high-bailiffs, appointed by the judge and removable by the lord-chancellor; and every person discharging the duties of high-bailiff is empowered to appoint a sufficient number of able and fit persons as bailiffs to assist him, whom he can dismiss at his pleasure. The duty of the high-bailiff is to serve all summonses and orders, and execute all the warrants, precepts and writs issued out of the court. The high bailiff is responsible for all the acts and defaults of himself, and of the bailiffs appointed to assist him, in the same way as a sheriff of a county is responsible for the acts and defaults of himself and his officers. By the same act (§49) bailiffs are answerable for any connivance, omission or neglect to levy any such execution. No action can be brought against a bailiff acting under order of the court without six days' notice (§52). Any warrant to a bailiff to give possession of a tenement justifies him in entering upon the premises named in the warrant, and giving possession, provided the entry be made between the hours of 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. (§ 142). The Law of Distress Amendment Act 1888 enacts that no person may act as a bailiff to levy any distress for rent, unless he is authorized by a county-court judge to act as a bailiff.


Scotland
The Scottish form of this post is the bailie. Bailies served as burgh magistrates in the system of local government in Scotland before 1975 when the system of burghs and counties was replaced by a two-tier system of Regional Councils and District Councils. The two-tier system was later replaced by a system of unitary authorities.

Under the new arrangements the bailies were abolished and replaced by Justices of the Peace serving in the District Courts of Scotland, these posts no longer holding any authority within the local authority as an administrative body. However the term Bailie is still used as an honorary title by Glasgow City Council for a number of senior councillors who can deputise for the Lord Provost.

The Scottish equivalent of a sheriff's bailiff or high bailiff is the sheriff officer (for the Sheriff Court) or the messenger-at-arms (for the Court of Session). These positions have been abolished by §60 of the Bankruptcy & Diligence &c. (Scotland) Act 2007, and replaced with the office of Judicial Officer under §57(1) of that enactment.


Channel Islands

In the Channel Islands the bailiff is the first civil officer in each of the two bailiwicks. He is appointed by the Crown, and generally holds office for life. He presides at the Royal Court, and takes the opinions of the jurats; he also presides over the States, and represents the crown in all civil matters. Though he need not necessarily have had legal training, he is usually selected from among those who have held some appointment at the island bar.


Isle of Man
The High Bailiff is the head stipendiary magistrate in the Isle of Man.


United States
In the United States bailiffs, sometimes known as marshals or court officers, are the law enforcement arm of the court. They keep order in the court, serve legal process or other court documents, and take charge of juries when the court is not in session. Also bailiffs will provide general security for the courthouse and its staff. Generally the local sheriff's office provides deputy sheriffs to fill this function.

In the state of Vermont, the High Bailliff is a constitutional officer elected in each county, responsible for filling the role of sheriff when the office-holder is unable, such as when he is a party to the matter at hand. The responsibilities of the high bailiff are defined in state statute.

In the state of New York, NYS Court Officers are sworn peace officers and are employed by The New York State Office of Court Administration, not local sheriff's departments. Utilizing an independent, state law enforcement agency that is separate from local departments displays the impartiality of the judicial system as well as unifies statewide security procedure. Three NYS Court Officers were killed during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. Dozens of Court Officers from the courts in lower Manhattan responded to the scene prior to the collapse of the towers.

The State of Michigan also has court officers appointed by the district court to serve process, as well as executing Orders to Seize Property (formerly known as Execution Against Property), and enforcing landlord-tenant evictions (Writ of Restitution). In some cases, court officers have the authority to arrest subjects with outstanding civil bench warrants. Court officers are usually subcontractors, being sworn by the court administrator, under the supervision of the judicial counsel. In counties that do not have court officers, civil process is usually forwarded to the sheriff's office to execute.

The State of Maine's Judicial Branch has a division within the Administrative Office of the Courts known as the State Marshal Service. Those assigned are fully sworn Deputy Marshals to provide physical security and law enforcement services to the various Superior, Family, Supreme, and District Courts as well as their respective judicial staff. These Marshals are state level law enforcement officers, trained through the Maine Criminal Justice Academy and hold the same power and duties throughout the State of Maine.


Canada
Bailiffs in Canada are very different to those in The United States of America. Bailiffs are responsible for the service of legal process. Duties of the bailiff include the service of legal documents, repossession and evictions in accordance with court judgments, application of wheel clamps and the execution of arrest warrants. They receive special training and now must have a degree in Paralegal Technology to become a bailiff. Bailiffs are only allowed to be "armed" with handcuffs on duty.


Other uses of the word
As most people's contact with bailiffs is when a bailiff comes to take property to enforce debt, in former times in The Fens of eastern England, the term "Bailiff of Bedford" was often used as slang for destructive floods of the River Great Ouse.

See Original Article From Wikpedia

If your business is at risk from a bailiff's visit and would like advise on how to get back in control of the debt before it's too late then call Debtsgone now. We aim to help you make manageable monthly payments which will permit you to continue to trade and get back in control.

Call Us Now On: 0800 071 1616

Email Us At: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See Our Website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

If your business was affected by the recent flooding in Yorkshire then you are likely wondering how you are going to carry on. Many companies will require expensive repair work before they are able to continue trading and this can lead to insolvency before the doors even re-open.

If your business is now in debt and you would like help getting it back on its feet then call us. We understand your needs and will focus on the best option for you, not for your creditors.

With the aid of a government scheme called a Company Voluntary Arrangement or CVA we can reduce your monthly repayments to a manageable level, allowing you to continue trading. In many cases a CVA can also write off a percentage of the debt, giving you room to breathe.

Unlike the alternatives (Administration, Bankruptcy, Liquidation) a CVA allows you to continue to run your company and offers the chance for your company to recover.

Unlike most Insolvency Practitioners Debtsgone LTD DO NOT charge upfront fees and we are happy to talk to you about your options free of charge and with no obligation. We are here to help you.

Call us on: 0800 071 1616

Email Us On: info@debtsgone.co.uk

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

CONSUMER legal advocates have raised concerns about emerging for-profit businesses targeting those on the brink of bankruptcy, warning that in many cases the fee-taking organisations were increasing the burden on those facing insolvency.

The Consumer Credit Legal Centre in Sydney argued that instead of reducing the number of bankruptcies, various for-profit providers may have the perverse effect of increasing the overall number of people pushed into bankruptcy.

In a submission to the Productivity Commission's review of consumer protection, it singled out service providers in three main areas: debt consolidators, debt agreement administrators and credit repair businesses.

The report says there are legitimate debt consolidation businesses available through mainstream lenders, essentially offering to refinance people's loans in one package at a lower overall interest rate.

But it adds: "There are businesses which target those in serious financial difficulty in order to gouge considerable profit while offering illusory benefits to consumers.

"These businesses take upfront fees that are large multiples of industry averages and place people in loans that they clearly cannot afford."

These businesses targeted consumers in danger of losing their home, at a time when they were ill-equipped to rationally evaluate a complex refinancing.

The report was also critical of the role of debt agreement administrators.

What are known as Part IX debt agreements allow heavily indebted people to come to a repayment agreement with their creditors through an administrator, although the effect on a person's credit record is the same as bankruptcy.

The centre raised concerns that the profit motive of administrators, who receive fees if someone chooses to make repayments under a Part IX agreement, was not necessarily leading to the right outcomes.

"Some CCLC clients do not appear to have even been insolvent at the point of entering a debt agreement," the centre said.

The centre raised the precedent in the United Kingdom in which regulators had expressed concerns that marketers of similar Individual Insolvency Agreements had contributed to a sharp spike in overall bankruptcies.

Finally, the centre argued so-called "credit repair" businesses, which offered to "repair" people's credit records, could only "repair" inaccuracies in a report and otherwise would be breaking the law.

"Business ventures which are designed to make money from the plight of consumers whose main problem is that they don't have enough money [are] essentially flawed," the submission stated.

See Original Article

If you are concerned about insolvency and its effects then drop us a line.

Call Us On: 0800 071 1616

Email Us At: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See Our Website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

INSOLVENCY figures for the six months to the end of June 2007 show the construction and engineering sectors suffering the biggest fallout.


They accounted for 37% of all corporate failures over the period according to consultancy Farrell Grant Sparks.

However the figures reveal a sharp reversal in the rate of insolvencies over the same period last year.

Between January and June 2007, 144 Irish companies were placed in voluntary liquidation, High Court liquidation, receivership or examinership.

That’s a fall of 26% and “bucks the trend”, said Declan Tate, the corporate recovery and insolvency partner of the group.

Given the slowdown in the economy and the continuing rise in interest rates affecting consumer and business confidence “the figures for the first half of this year present something of an anomaly”, he said.

They are down from 195 in the first half of last year to 144 for the half year to end June 2007.

That compares with 208 for the six months of 2005, a remarkable performance in the changed economic circumstances, he said.

Geographically, Dublin continued to be the black spot in the country, accounting for 41% of failures or a total of 59 against 93 last time.

Next worst in the league table of company failures was Kildare at 13. That compared with nine previously. Kildare, Clare and Wicklow were the only counties to show a worsening in performance.

Clare recorded a level of nine against three last time while closures in Wicklow rose from four to nine.

Cork’s company failure level came in at 12, down from 15, ranking it third in the table of companies that ceased to function as going concerns during the period.

“If you compare these to the number of corporate failures recorded in the same period for 2005, the decrease becomes even more apparent showing a staggering 31%,” said Mr Tate.

While construction and engineering constitute the worst performing sector the report said the numbers were still down from 71 in 2006 to 53 this time round.

It added the improvement was due to the fact that the sector was better capitalised, adding that it was also benefiting from more hands-on management of working capital requirements.

Historically these have been primary factors in failure within this sector.

See Full Article


If you are concerned that your business is struggling with insolvency and would like some friendly help and advice then call Debtsgone. We will do our best to help you.

Call us on: 0800 071 1616

Email us on: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See our website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

Hamburg insolvency partner Sven-Holger Undritz has been selected by the local court to act as insolvency administrator to furniture maker Schieder Moebel’s holding company.

The instruction is a coup for the firm as it is expected to take years to complete, with various subsidiaries filing for insolvency in addition to the parent company.

Schieder, which is Europe’s biggest furniture maker, narrowly avoided insolvency in April after securing loans from banks but since then some of its former directors have become embroiled in accusations of manipulating the company’s balance sheet.

Last-ditch attempts to sell the entire group collapsed late last month with potential investors concerned that the acquisition was too risky given the ongoing investigations. However, numerous law firms are expected to win roles for potential bidders interested in buying the subsidiaries.

The Schieder group employs more than 11,000 staff across 41 locations in Europe and Asia, servicing more than 5,000 customers.

Undritz’s objective is to help keep the business running, save jobs and find acquirers for the company’s assets to try to bring it out of insolvency. He is working alongside a large team from White & Case acting for various subsidiaries. Other insolvency partners involved include Klaus Pannen (Hamburg), Biner Baehr (Duesseldorf), Claudia Jansen (Frankfurt) and Bettina Schmudde (Hamburg).

Undritz told Legal Week: “We were trying to sell the whole group but a lot of potential investors said the whole operation was too risky, so now we are talking to investors and hope they will be willing to buy parts of the group. We have around 20 lawyers working around the clock on this. It is one of the biggest insolvency cases Germany has had for many years.”

In Germany insolvency lawyers are regularly appointed by the courts to act as administrators with Undritz serving in this capacity for local German courts since 1998.

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer was the corporate adviser to Schieder until the insolvency proceedings started and is still acting for the company on some matters.

No insolvency filings have been made for profitable subsidiaries in Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Italy, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Poland.

See Original Article

If you are concerned about insolvency and would like to speak to an expert then give us a call. We aim to help you!

Call Us On: 0800 071 1616

Email Us At: info@debtsgone.co.uk

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

Bad debts, disputed invoices and reluctance by the banks to provide further funding have led to the downfall of high-profile Hiab dealer Lorry Loaders, according to its liquidators. Creditors, including Hiab UK, Plant Equipment and Volvo Truck and Bus, are unlikely to receive any of the £560,000 they are owed now that the Wisbech, Cambs industrial equipment supplier is being wound up. Hiab UK and Hiab UK (Equipment) alone are owed more than £220,000.

According to insolvency practitioners the company had experienced problems in 2003 when a 10% increase in the cost of its purchases led to a £58,000 loss.

An accountant was employed to sift through its accounts and the insolvency report says: "A discrepancy was found within suppliers' accounts and after thorough investigation on both sides this was not resolved." Estimated losses for the year ending June 2006 were £55,000 cashflow problems due to slow payments compounded the company's problems. Director Peter Bavister put £32,000 of his own money into the business to pay salaries.

He also talked to five banks about funding but concerns over Lorry Loaders' £121,000 loan account prevented a deal being struck.

Further bad debts and a dispute with its factoring company over £31,000 led to it being placed into creditors' voluntary liquidation on 26 April. When CM rang Lorry Loaders we were told by Hiab East Anglia spokesman Nathan Cockman that this company would be trading from Lorry Loaders' old premises: "Obviously we are doing the same sort of work in the same area." Bavister could not be contacted not respond as CM went to press.


See Original Article

If you would like advice on insolvency then call the experts. We will take the time to listen to your needs and work through it with you at your pace.

Call us now on: 0800 071 1616

Email us at: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See our website at: www.debtsgone.co.uk

UK business directors are being warned they could find themselves liable if they do not get up to speed with new legislation coming into force on 1 October of this year.

The Companies Act 2006, will introduce sweeping changes designed to simplify and improve present law. However, it will also created new detailed obligations for directors, putting duties previously developed in case law, into writing.

Chris Jones, a Partner in the insolvency and recoveries team at Irwin Mitchell, warned that it is in a director’s best interests to prepare for the change. He said: “If directors fail to meet their obligations they may well find themselves personally liable for any adverse consequences suffered by the company’s various stakeholders.”

The Act will require directors to act in a way that they consider most likely to promote the success of their company, including taking into account long-term consequences of their decisions, and maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct.

Directors will also have to account for the impact of company operations on the community and environment. For example, if a business is forced to make redundancies, it must be able to show that it considered the full effect on the community, or face legal consequences.

However, Mr Jones was keen to point out the new legislation does bring uncertainty in some areas. He said: “Exactly how businesses will have to operate in some respects is still pretty uncertain and is only likely to be shaped by cases brought after the act comes in.

“In the meantime, directors will need to make good faith judgements regarding issues governed by the new legislation and if in doubt, take professional advice,” he added

Mr Jones advised that businesses should prepare for the legislation by reviewing their processes, procedures and policies, and record the reasons behind decisions, showing that each decision had been made in light of their statutory obligations.

See Original Article

If you are concerned about insolvency and would like advice feel free to contact us here at Debtsgone. We are always happy to help.

Call us now on: 0800 071 1616

Email Us On: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See our website: www.debtsgone.co.uk

Biofuels Corporation seeks re-structuring as market conditions hinder business. One of Europe's biggest biodiesel producers has drafted a re-structuring plan in a bid to avoid insolvency. Biofuels Corporation, based at Seals Sands on Teeside, has proposed a deal which would leave 94% of the company owned by Barclays Bank. The company admits that it can only continue trading with Barclays' support.

Biofuel chairman Mike Buzzacott says:
"Given the difficult trading backdrop, and the level of existing debt, the board has concluded that it should enter into restructuring discussions with Barclays to seek to create a platform from which the group could fulfil its potential as a significant force in the renewable transport fuels market."

A statement explains: "The combination of higher vegetable oil prices and lower biodiesel prices have together meant that the company has been unable to make profits from the production of biodiesel." An emergency general meeting will discuss the re-structuring on 23 July. If approved the plan will take effect immediately. The company is expected to cancel its membership of the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) on 2 August.

Under the deal Barclays would cancel £40m of the company's debt in exchange for 94% of the shares. Biofuels Corporation began selling biofuel in April 2006 by September the plant had been tested at production rates of 30 tonnes/hour which represents more than 90% of capacity.


See Original Article

If you are concerned that your business is struggling with insolvency and would like some help/advice then drop us a line. We specialise in helping businesses struggling with debt and aim to keep you trading.

Call us on: 0800 071 1616

Email Us At: info@debtsgone.co.uk

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

Around 13,000 companies become insolvent each year and in many of these cases the best chance of saving jobs or recovering any of the investors' capital is to find a buyer for the business.

New owners can often find value in a firm where others have failed, but such rescue bids face a major barrier in the form of the new Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (Tupe) rules. The original Tupe regulations were introduced in 1981 to protect the pay and conditions of employees upon the sale or transfer of a business.

Business recovery professionals have been warning ever since that the burdens they impose put off potential purchasers who would otherwise be willing to take on the risk of buying a failed business by imposing on them uncertain liabilities for employee debts and onerous obligations, such as pre-purchase terms and conditions with regard to employees.

So with the new Tupe regulations, which came into force on 6 April 2006, the Government attempted to address these concerns. The overriding principle under Tupe 1981 was that any kind of variation to terms and conditions in the context of a transfer was void. The new rules provide a mechanism for businesses that are subject to certain insolvency proceedings to be exempted from some of the provisions that would ordinarily apply.

They limit the transfer of certain liabilities in formal insolvency proceedings. In some cases debts to employees can be met by the National Insurance Fund (NIF). They also allow changes to be made to the employment terms.

However, far from inspiring buyers with a newfound sense of confidence, the new regulations have created widespread confusion. The main problems are that they are very badly drafted, the language vague and confusing, it is impossible to determine when exactly they apply and the Department of Trade and Industry's (DTI's) guidance contradicts the regulations. The regulations have already received serious criticism from the corporate recovery community, particularly R3, the Association of Business Recovery Professionals, which continues to lobby Parliament for them to be revoked, or at least amended.

R3 feels that the DTI ignored its consultation recommendations and argues that consequently the regulations are worded poorly and offer little or no certainty. Lord Hunt of Wirral argues that the rules both fail to specify the types of UK insolvency proceedings to which they are intended to apply and fail to make clear which liabilities will pass to a purchaser.

See Full Article

If you are concerned that your business is becoming/has become insolvent and would like to keep trading then call us. We specialise in Corporate Recovery and can help reduce your debts to a manageable level to keep you trading.

Call us on: 0800 071 1616

Email Us At: info@debtsgone.co.uk

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

SCOTTISH music store chain Fopp was today on the verge of administration, just days after it closed its doors for an extraordinary stock take.

The firm has called in Ernst & Young (E&Y) to look at its options, which include administration, while some staff claim they have been told they will not receive their wages.

Fopp, which started as a stall in an arcade in Glasgow in 1981 by Gordon Montgomery and has since built up a network of around 50 stores nationwide, has been in talks with its bankers and E&Y administrator Colin Dempster after it stopped online sales and credit card transactions in its stores.

A spokeswoman for E&Y said: "We have been brought in to discuss the options with the management."

But she insisted Mr Dempster had not yet been appointed by the court as an official administrator.

Some staff claimed they had been told they would not receive their pay packets today and intimated that they would be "protesting in the strongest terms at their extremely bad treatment by this company".

Fopp opened its latest store in Cumbernauld just three weeks ago, but last week closed all of its shops, claiming it was undergoing a massive "stock taking" exercise. On its website, the retailer says it can no longer take online sales due to "circumstances beyond our control".

See Full Article

If you are concerned that your business is at risk from administration the call us now. We can help save your business and keep you in charge.

Call us on: 0800 071 1616

Email Us At: info@debtsgone.co.uk

See our website: www.debtsgone.co.uk