INSOLVENCY ACT

0 Comments

Contents

Introduction. 2

Insolvency Processes. 3

Firm Voluntary Arrangement 4

Liquidation. 5

Compulsory Liquidation. 5

Voluntary Liquidation. 6

Administration. 7

Administrative Receivership. 9

Liquidating a firm or winding up. 10

Tests for insolvency. 10

Balance sheet test 11

Cash flow test 12

Components of cash flow statements. 12

Test conditions. 13

Critical analysis. 14

Eurosail case. 14

The law.. 15

The decision. 15

Comment on effectiveness of the Insolvency Act to Solve the case. 15

Nortel 16

The Law.. 16

The Decision. 16

Comment on effectiveness of the Insolvency Act to Solve the case. 16

McDonagh and Pengelly. 17

The Law.. 17

The decision. 17

Comment on effectiveness of the Insolvency Act to Solve the case. 17

AEI Cables. 18

The Law.. 18

The decision. 19

Comment on the effectiveness of the Insolvency Act 19

Conclusion. 20

Reference List 21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

A firm or a partnership is considered to be insolvent if it has no sufficient assets that it can use to discharge its debt and liabilities. The Insolvency Act 1986 states that a firm is restrained by a court of law if the firm is not able to pay its debt. The court then goes on to give the dictations of the situations that warrant a firm to not to be able to meet its financial obligations. In this respect, there are two kinds of insolvency; cash flow insolvency and being in a situation when the firm has deficit assets[1]. In particular, section 123 of the insolvency Act dictates the most common situations that warrants an inability to pay of a firm as;

– After the firm has proved by the use of the cash flow test that it is not able to pay.

– If a firm is able to prove to the court that its liabilities are in excess of the assets considering contingent and prospective assets. This is also called the balance sheet test.

The court can declare a firm unable to pay its debt after analyzing any of the three given conditions. However, this route does not necessarily make the firm unable to pay its debts but could mean that the firm is not willing to pay for any condition stated. It is important to note that creditors who are not well informed, will depend on the courts determination to prove the financial position to that particular firm. Creditors have a constructional route that they can use to petition for a court decision which differs from their estimation. However, the threat of an adverse costs, and many other associated hurdles and procedures deter the creditors from pursuing the option provided in the Insolvency Act that is likely to cause a dispute with the debtor.

Even with such laid out conditions to determine if the firm is indeed able or not able to pay its debts, there are some case scenarios which fall out of such conditions prompting for professionals to comment on the solvency of such a firm. At times when directors examine a claim for recovery at an undervalue, they are forced to presume insolvency just because the firm has already begun its insolvency proceedings. As such, any of the cases when the issue of a firm deserves to be involved or not are misguided leading to loss of jobs for the employees of such companies. However, there has been deliberate research in order to accelerate problem solving of this kind.

The paper makes a deep interrogation of the Insolvency Act of 1986 by looking at how the Act has helped to navigate some of the biggest insolvency issues. In addition, the paper looks at the various amendments of the Insolvency Act of 1986, and how they have influenced the determination of whether a company is unable to repay its debts or able to pay its debt. If a firm’s assets are insufficient to clear its debts and liabilities, it is considered to be insolvent. This is more of a question of fact rather than one of law. Legislation relating to corporate insolvency in the United Kingdom is found in the Insolvency Act of 1986. The paper also looks at the Insolvency Act 1986 and how it has taken into account contingent and prospective liabilities and assets. According to the Insolvency Act 1986, the court uses two main indicators to determine if a company should be declared insolvent or not. The two tools are the balance sheet test of insolvency and the cash flow test. The extent to which the tools are adequate in accounting for contingent and prospective liabilities and assets will be investigated.

Insolvency Processes

A firm in financial problems may be made subject to any of 5 procedures. The procedures include; scheme of arrangement, administration, firm voluntary organization, receivership and liquidation. The administration technique was introduced by the Insolvency Act of 1986 and has been revised over time to allow more streamlined procedures which allow directors to appoint administrators without necessarily going to court. However, such a procedure is only feasible with a specific secured creditor although their flexibility to appoint administrative receivers has been very much restricted in addition to slight advancement of procedures, new method including increased protection for unsecured creditors were introduced with administrator being given authority to make certain positive changes[2].

The five procedures are:

  • Compulsory Voluntary Arrangement (CVA)
  • Administrative receivership (ADR)
  • Administration (ADM)
  • Creditors’ voluntary liquidation (CVL)
  • Compulsory liquidation (CWU)

The last two options are for a firm that will not be resurrected and will be dissolved whereas the first three options provide the potential for rescuing the insolvent firm.

Firm Voluntary Arrangement

A CVA refers to a binding agreement between the financially troubled firm and its creditors. It is a form of agreement on what will be done going forward. Some of the options may entail an agreement to pay all or part of the debt over some specified period of time. Rescue of a firm’s entity in insolvency is done through a CVA, whereas saving the business is done through an administration with a licensed insolvency practitioner. A CVA is useful in that it can be used to avoid other stricter insolvency procedures such as liquidation. The practitioner is an administrator who negotiates the sale of the business and all its assets to a firm. A firm voluntary agreement is very often led by an administration.

Liquidation

Liquidation is a firm insolvency process where an insolvency practitioner or the liquidator is appointed to oversee the realization of all the firm’s assets and in statutory order distribute them to the firm’s creditors. Sometimes, there is no other appropriate course of action for enterprises struggling to pay off their debts.

Liquidation usually means the ultimate termination of the firm, but there have been situations of insolvency that had started as liquidation and was subsequently converted to a rescue procedure after further information came to light. Insolvent liquidation occurs in two forms: creditors’ voluntary liquidation and compulsory liquidation.

Compulsory Liquidation

This is the process that occurs after the court orders the firm to be wound up. This will occur once a creditor petitions the insolvency court with an unpaid debt of not less than 750 euros because the firm is unable to pay off its debts or that it’s balance sheet insolvent. The court makes an order to have the firm wound up.

Voluntary Liquidation

Voluntary liquidation is the process that occurs when the directors of a firm decide that the best course forward would be to wind up the firm. A firm, however, doesn’t have to be insolvent for one to petition for voluntary liquidation.

Voluntary liquidation exists in two forms:

  • Members’ voluntary liquidation (MVL)
  • Creditors’ voluntary liquidation (CVL)

Member’s voluntary liquidation occurs if the firm has been unable to pay off its debts in the last one year. The directors will consequentially swear a statutory declaration declaring solvency.

Administration

Administration basically entails bringing in an administrator to take over the firm. This is more of a rescue oriented insolvency process that will occur when a firm seeks an administrator to try and keep the firm going. The lender may also ask an administrator to come in to rescue the value. The administrator appointed in whatever firm has the power and mandate to act for the management of all affairs of the enterprise. The cheapest and fastest way of entering administration for the firm, is by a having the secured creditor or the directors to appoint an administrator. In a case where the administration is complicated due to reasons such as availability of overseas assets, the firm applies to a court of law to appoint one. During this period, the creditors do not have any legal action to try and recover their debts. In addition, it is illegal for the creditors to start a compulsory liquidation without permission obtained from the court[3].

Administration may last up to a year. If the firm is unable to resume trading, it is dissolved. There cannot be the distribution for unsecured creditors, or the firm will be liquidated so that a liquidator can bring claims or realize and distribute assets to unsecured creditors of the firm. An appointed administrator for the firm must be a licensed insolvency practitioner and there are three ways to nominate an administrator:

  • By a court order due to the application of the firm, its creditors or both
  • By a floating charge holder filing a notice in a court of law.
  • By the directors of the firm or the firm filing a notice before a court of justice.

Three separate parts of the administration process that are overseen by the insolvency practitioner are:

  1. Appointment of an administrator
  2. Meeting of the Creditors
  3. Notice to all the members

Administrative Receivership

When a firm is in administrative receivership, it is also considered to be “in receivership.” The holder of a floating charge, usually a bank, initiates receivership. The holder will appoint an administrative receiver to get back the money owed to it. The is no court insolvency in such cases. Some of the tasks of the receiver include getting enough money to pay:

The preferential creditors, the floating charge holder’s debt, and the costs that have been incurred during the process.

It is important to note, however, that there has been some recent development along the line of thought from the Insolvency Act of 1986. The holder has the power to appoint an administrative receiver only in connection with floating charges that are granted in relation to:

Private partnerships, finance projects, financial markets, and the registered social landlords.

Liquidating a firm or winding up

Liquidation is the legal ending up of a limited firm. The consequences are that the firm in question will stop doing business and stop employing people. The firm ceases to exist and its name is deleted from the register at Companies House[4]. It is important to note however, that both solvent and insolvent companies face a risk of being wound up by their own directors. The process involves:

  • Ensuring that all firm contracts are completed or ended as a whole.
  • Terminating the firm’s business
  • Selling all assets.
  • Collecting money that is owed to companies.
  • Repaying share capital to all the shareholders.
  • Distributing funds to creditors

Tests for insolvency

Balance sheet test

The Balance sheet can be used to test insolvency that could occur in a business. The insolvency occurs when the business has more liabilities than total assets. The Balance sheet test has been so instrumental to show a clear picture of the financial performance of the firm and it helps the board of directors to avoid any insolvent trading accusation[5]. The business should always seek professional assistance so as to establish the insolvency of the business. The professionals should be able to determine when the business is tactically insolvent. The insolvency will occur when the assets are not valued well or when the liabilities have not been included in the calculation. It is also very instrumental for the firm to use the cash flow test before application of the test of balance sheet. The Cash flow insolvency will occur when the business is not able to settle its bills hence become insolvent as per the Insolvency act of 1986. There is dilution of accuracy and the absence of hypothetical outcome when the cash flow test is used by the firm for a long time.

According to the ruling of a supreme court in 2013, the term “reasonably near organizational future” do differ from one organization to another when using the cash flow test to determine insolvency[6]. The organizations could be able to endure long period of payment; a factor that has been instrumental in the incorporation of the cash flow test to different organizations facing insolvency. The accountability of the cash flow form of insolvency is easy unlike the balance sheet form of insolvency.

The Balance sheet test was recently considered by the UK Supreme Court ruling. It has been incorporated as a system to show that the firm is insolvent and unable to meet its liabilities. The UK Court ruling was in reference to section 2 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The ruling had the following conclusion on the insolvency of the organization; when the organization is not able to settle the debts, the cash-flow test is used especially when; the organizational value of assets is less than the organizational value of liabilities after consideration of the prospective liabilities this is the “balance-sheet test.

In addition, In BNY Corporate Trustee Services LTD and others v Euro sail-UK 2007-3BL PLC and others (2013), the Supreme Court ruled that a firm’s financial state should be assessed on the basis of a commercial assessment and realistic assessment of its present, prospective and contingent assets and its liabilities. The supreme court held that the ‘balance sheet test’ for insolvency should not be regarded as just involving a test to prove whether the firm has reached the point of collapse as stated under section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986[7].

Cash flow test

Inability to pay charges as they fall due is an obvious indication of your organization’s shaky budgetary circumstance. Besides, a prerequisite exists to consider whether you can pay bills ‘in the sensibly not so distant future.’ It can’t be over-underlined that boosting lender interests is primary and overshadows organization and shareholder interests in this circumstance. Chiefs will be relied upon to comprehend that if the group is paying its bills late every month, the impact on loan bosses should be overseen.

A business indebtedness test, for example, looks ahead to future installments, and in spite of the fact that in a few enterprises installments are characteristically later than in others, chiefs ought to have the capacity to show that a reasonable installment system has been taken after[8].

Components of cash flow statements

The income test worries about the firm’s obligations and those falling due in the sensibly not so distant future. What constitutes the “reasonably not so distant future” will rely on every one of the conditions including, specifically, the nature of the organization’s business. In budgetary bookkeeping, an income specification, or finances stream, is a monetary specification that shows how changes in assets and salary influence money and money counterparts, and separates the investigation to working, contributing, and financing exercises[9]. The income declaration worries about the stream of trade in and out of business. The announcement catches both the current working outcomes and the going with changes to be decided as sheet and salary articulation.

Test conditions

The confirmation of the UK Supreme Court ruling was that:

The organizational cash-flow test has more concern on the business debts that are falling due together with the debts that are falling due in the near reasonably future in the organization. The “reasonably near future” concept will be much dependent various forms of circumstances in an organization that may include particularly the nature of business and its operation.

At some point, the Cash Flow test ceases to be concrete and become so much speculative. This is when the UK Supreme court has considered more than reasonably near business future. At this point, the balance-sheet test will become so much more sensible form of test for insolvency of the business as compared to the Cash flow test.

Balance sheet test has been considered to be a legal test whereby the court has been the instrumental determination of the liabilities of the organization especially by the Supreme Court. It is the responsibility of the court of law to determine the assets of the organization and compare it with the liabilities of the business. The organization will be solvent only when it is able to meet all those contingent liabilities in the reasonable future.

The firm’s characterization having arrived at “the point of no return because of incurable deficiency in its assets” will not be the correct balance-sheet test for organization insolvency and will not be able to pass this common usage[10].

Both the Cash flow and the balance sheet test will be applied for specific reasons in the organization. The sole importance is to trace the financial performance of the organization. In case the cash flow test used specifically, the creditors, once the firm reaches the point of no return will have to lose out because of the defeat of the assets in the organization.

If the organization has been deemed to be insolvent, the board of directors are obliged to seek for Licensed Insolvency Practitioner[11]. This Practitioner will bring clarification on what could be the best course of action that the organization should take in a bid to resolve the firm problems and maintain the going concern of the firm. The insolvent firm’s directors are supposed to minimize the various losses in the business and are not supposed to continue trading unless the firm has proved in the court of law that it has a strong reason to continue in its operation and that it will be able to settle all its debts in future. This will therefore help them be safe from being disqualified from being the directors of the firm. The solvency of the organization is an important state of the organization that the companies should always be keen to maintain so as to ensure success of the companies. The success of the organization is weighed on the amount of the assets that it has considering its Balance sheet , the P&L account and the cash flow.

Critical analysis

Eurosail case

There are many cases which have used the Insolvency Act of 1986. One of the is the Euro sail. Euro sail got a portfolio of sub-prime mortgage loans that were funded by the issue of loan notes in different classes and currencies. Since the income from the underlying mortgage were repayable in Sterling but the notes were payable in US dollars and Euro and Sterling, Eurosail got into many currency swaps with an entity in the Lehman Brothers to leverage against inflation. The notes provided that in case of a default, the notes would be due and payable. Default would happen in case Eurosail was not able to pay its debt in accordance to section 123(2).

When Lehman Brothers fell, Eurosail lost the protection of the currency swaps leaving it only with a claim in the Lehman’s insolvency. In addition, changes in the interest and currency rates as well as market failure of the mortgage market lead to the audited accounts of the company indicating that liabilities were way higher than its assets. However, the company was still able pat interest on notes and repay principal to the level that the funds were available.

A group of creditors started the process making a determination of whether it was in order to declare an event of default. The creditors argued that if the company was allowed to repay interest on principal as well as the notes, they would face shortfall. On the other hand, if the company had default declared, its position would be improved since it would rank pari pasu with the creditors.

The law

Section 123(2) states:

“A company is declared unable to pay its debts if it has been proved to the court that the value of assets is less than the value of its liabilities, considering its contingent and prospective liabilities”

The decision

The supreme court upheld the court’s decision. The supreme court cited some specific clauses of the Insolvency Act of 1986. These were;

  • The companies Act of 2006 is materially different to the statutory test of a company being unable to pay its debt.
  • The balance sheet test requires that the court makes a determination on that, on the balance of probabilities, the company has less assets when compared to liabilities, including contingent and prospective liabilities.

Comment on effectiveness of the Insolvency Act to Solve the case

This particular case indicated that further research had to be done to determine whether or not a company is balance sheet insolvent as required by section 123 sub-article 2. The research should provide further details as to what other factors should be considered before a determination is made concluding that a company is balance sheet insolvent. These details should take into consider where a company’s liabilities may not be influenced for a long period into the future and when it can easily pay its debts as they mature.

Nortel

Nortel and Leman companies operated a pension scheme. That means that they were subjects of “moral hazard” provisions as determined in the Pensions Act 2004.In case of underfunding of each group’s pension scheme, there would be a real prospect of the companies becoming the subject of financial support direction and result in a notice given.

The Law

Under a contribution notice, the pension regulators may require group companies to make payments to the scheme and to provide support to the scheme under a financial support direction. However, unless the pensions regulators impose its power under the act, companies other than the employer would not feel directly liable to the scheme. A creditor may prove liquidation of a company if the creditor is owed a debt. In this context, a debt includes:

  • A liability in which a company is subject when it goes into liquidation according to the Insolvency Rules1986.
  • A liability which results from an obligation to which the company was liable for when it entered liquidation.

The Decision

The Supreme Court held that the financial support direction liabilities were proved under the companies rule of 13.12(2)(c) of the 1986 Insolvency rule. By virtue of the statutory scheme set out in the Pensions Act, the companies were under an obligation that carried a real prospect of of a liability coming in the future. The court maintained that the companies were under an obligation that they should make payments to the pension regulators in accordance with statutory scheme even though they may not have been subject to an FSD at the time of entering an administration.

Comment on effectiveness of the Insolvency Act to Solve the case

There had already been controversial extension of the categories of liability which may be considered to be expenses in the case of Goldacre where rent that matured in the period of administration was taken to be an administration expense. This has led to concerns on how which categories should have preferential status and how far they should be progressed. The decision taken by the court is a good indication for insolvency practitioners, creditors as well as enders and is perceived as a rescue culture.

McDonagh and Pengelly

In these cases, the employee’s contracts ended after their employer went into liquidation forcing them to claim against the National Insurance fund for arrears of pay as well as unpaid holiday. However, the claim of the employees was rejected based on the fact that they had no entitlement because the company was already insolvent after entering into a CVA, something that came as a rude shock to them.

The Law

Section 182 of the employment Rights Act 1997 provided that the Secretary of state shall make payments from the National Insurance fund if:

  • The employee’s employer has become insolvent;
  • The employee’s employment becomes terminated
  • On the respective date the employee was supposed to be paid the whole of part of any debt to which the section is applicable.

In this section, insolvency is defined as including a company voluntary arrangements, while section 184 defines” appropriate date” which for the arrears of pay and holiday is the insolvent date of a company.

The decision

The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) maintained that employees that were employed by companies that had already entered into a voluntary arrangement were not to be paid out of the National Insurance Fund when the company went into liquidation. The chance to be paid was only when the case was for insolvency event that was not proceeded by a CVA. The date that the case follow is that of the CVA.

Comment on effectiveness of the Insolvency Act to Solve the case

The Act is deemed unfair to the employees. This point has been acknowledged by many courts ad also raises the question to whether in future employees could go ahead and look to vote against a proposed voluntary arrangement. When a company enters into a CVA, it means that the employees chances of getting their share would be minimal

AEI Cables

A company which was facing financial challenges sought professional advice from professional accountants. The company was advised to look at ways of minimizing costs or get additional finance. Otherwise, the company was at risk of trading whilst insolvent which had potential consequences to the directors. After the bank of the company withdrew support, the directors went ahead to close one of the company’s operational plants and notified a union official of the proposed closure. More than 125 employees were then laid to make the department lean and avoid redundancy.

As a result, employees brought a claim to the EAT which emphasized that there was a complete lack of consultation and weak protective award. The company was forced to appeal that judgement. There was no dispute regarding the fact that the company failed to make consultation and the tribunal had been right to make a protective award. In addition, there was no any attempts to show that the company insolvency was under special circumstances.

The Law

In reference to the Trade Union AND Labour Relations Act of 1991, section 188, a company has to consult before making a lay off of more than 20 employees on the basis of redundancy. In addition, if the layoff enters the above 100 slots, then the collective consultation has to begin not less than 45 days before the first dismissal. In case a company fails to meet these requirements, then it can face the protective award as prescribed by the employment tribunal for failing to comply with the obligations. The maximum award protective is placed at 81 day’s pay for every dismissed staff.

In any case where there are difficulties in complying to these requirements, the employer has to take all steps towards compliance as are reasonably practical in the given circumstances.

The decision

The employment tribunal maintained that it was reasonable to expect an employer to continue doing business while insolvent so that there is sufficient information to consult from in regards to its obligations. The employment tribunal failed to realize that the employer was insolvent and could never carry trading lawfully to make it possible for consultation of more than 10 days or more. The actions of the employer were therefore deliberate in flouting its obligations but those coming from an employer that was committed to keep the union informed. The EAT, In light of these considerations, reduced the protective award to 60 days.

The stress on the purpose of the award was to ensure that employers complied with obligations of the union and not for compensating the employees. The starting point was to have the company pay a maximum award but was reduced after mitigations of the circumstances which allowed for that quotation to be reduced appropriately. The employment tribunal did not have a regard to insolvency as well as the repercussions of continuing to do business to allow for a consultation period to occur.

Comment on the effectiveness of the Insolvency Act

While it has been maintained that insolvency should not be considered as a special circumstance, the above case makes it clear that employment tribunals must take into account the effect that an employer’s insolvency would have in considering its ability of consulting at the prescribed timeframe. However, employees still need to work out a good plan of making sure they have the best in terms of collective consultation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Insolvency Act of 1986 (including the amendments), has laid down procedures that are necessary to determine the viability of a company to insolvency. The five procedure include Compulsory Voluntary Arrangement, Administrative receivership, Administration, Creditor’s voluntary liquidation and compulsory liquidation. Most importantly, the paper has critically looked at how the Insolvency Act of 1986 takes into account Contingent and Prospective liabilities and responsibilities during the process of insolvency. The Insolvency Act of 1986, has been under continued amendments. These amendments are supposed to make the process of insolvency more comprehensive and inclusive of the changing business environments. Through the study of various cases that have been subject to the Insolvency Act of 1986, the paper has identified various cases that critically assess when a company is unable to pay its debts under the Insolvency Act 1986. The cases also indicate whether the law takes into account of contingent and prospective liabilities and assets. However, further research has to be made so as to ensure that the emerging issues are well documented and categorized in the Insolvency Act. In light of this need, the court of appeal recently dictated, that the balance sheet test of insolvency and the cash-flow test of insolvency are limited in that they cannot come up with one formulae that is able to comprehensively determine if a company should face insolvency. Under such circumstances, the court of appeal has to form its own view in making a determination if the company has reached a point where it cannot go back from. That weakness whereby the tools of determining insolvency needs a developed legislation that is able to make procedures which can be used for such cases. It is quite easy for those overseeing such cases to fall short in their determinations due to biasness. Under such cases, the verdict given is not based on a pre-designed set of guidelines but the side that the judges get swayed into. The consequences of such verdicts may be detrimental for the parties involved and tarnish the name of the judicial system as well. It is therefore paramount that research is done in haste to ensure that the rules of determining insolvency are up to date with the modern business environment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference List

 

Heaton, J. B. (2016). Positive Equity Prices with Insolvency under Legal Solvency Tests. Browser Download This Paper.

Morrison, D. S. (2014). To What Extent Does’ The Point of No Return’Impact on the Notion of Balance Sheet Insolvency.

Del Negro, M., & Sims, C. A. (2015). When does a central bank׳ s balance sheet require fiscal support?. Journal of Monetary Economics, 73, 1-19.

Markose, S. M., Giansante, S., Eterovic, N. A., & Gatkowski, M. (2017). Early Warning and Systemic Risk in Core Global Banking: Balance Sheet Financial Network and Market Price-based Methods.

Chow, J. T. (2015). Stress testing corporate balance sheets in emerging economies.

Garrido, P., Campos, P., & Dias, A. (2015). Balance Sheet Analysis Of Credit And Debt Networks. Advances in Complex Systems, 18(05n06), 1550025.

GREAT BRITAIN. (1988). Insolvency Act 1986. London, Butterworths.

ANDERSON, H. (1987). Administrators: part II of the Insolvency Act 1986. London, Sweet & Maxwell. http://books.google.com/books?id=RmcdAQAAMAAJ.

COLLET’S HOLDINGS LTD. (1993). Collet’s Holdings Ltd. (in administration): joint administrators’ proposals pursuant to section 23 of the Insolvency Act 1986 : corporate voluntary arrangement under part 1 of the Insolvency Act 1986. [Watford, England], [Collet’s].

LAWRENCE, P. A., & WISEMAN, C. G. (1993). Collet’s Holdings Ltd (in administration): joint administrators’ proposals pursuant to section 23 of the Insolvency Act 1986 : corporate voluntary arrangement under part 1 of the Insolvency Act 1986. [Watford], [Peter A. Lawrence and Colin G. Wiseman].

GREAT BRITAIN. (2007). Insolvency Act 1986. Accounts 1986-87. Statements prepared pursuant to section 409 of the Insolvency Act 1986 of the sums received and paid by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under section 403, and of the sums credited and debited to the investment account by the National Debt Commissioners, for the year ended 31 March 1987 ; together with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon. (In continuation of House of Commons Paper no. 317 of 1986-87.). Cambridge [England], Proquest LLC. http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:hcpp&rft_dat=xri:hcpp:rec:1987-084516.

SLAUGHTER AND MAY. (1986). Insolvency act 1986, Firm directors disqualification act 1986: a guide to the new legislation. London, Slaughter and May

GREAT BRITAIN. (2008). Insolvency Act 1986 accounts. 2006-2007. 2006-2007. London, TSO.

(1986). Insolvency Act 1986, Firm Directors Disqualification Act 1986: table of destinations. H.M.S.O.

GREAT BRITAIN. (2007). Insolvency Act 1986 account 2002-2003. Cambridge [England], Proquest LLC. http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:hcpp-us&rft_dat=xri:hcpp:rec:2002-108949.

GREAT BRITAIN. (2007). Insolvency Act 1986 accounts 1995-96. Cambridge [England], Proquest LLC. http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:hcpp-us&rft_dat=xri:hcpp:rec:1996-097902.

(1987). A guide to the Insolvency Act 1986 and Firm Directors Disqualification Act 1986. London, Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.

GREAT BRITAIN. (2008). Insolvency Act 1986 account 2007-2008. London, TSO.

GREAT BRITAIN. (1986). Insolvency Act 1986: Elizabeth II. 1986. Chapter 45. London, H.M.S.O.

DENNIS, V., & FOX, A. (2003). The new law of insolvency: Insolvency Act 1986 to Enterprise Act 2002. London, Law Soc.

SEALY, L. S., MILMAN, D., & BAILEY, P. (2016). Annotated guide to the insolvency legislation.

SCOTLAND. (2010). Insolvency Act 1986: floating charges, foreign investment and European regulations : the power to appoint a receiver. Edinburgh, Scottish Government. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/254431/0101393.pdf.

HOMAN, M. (1989). A survey of administrations under the Insolvency Act 1986: the result of administration orders made in 1987. [Milton Keynes], Research Board of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.

GREAT BRITAIN. (2011). Draft Insolvency Act 1986 (Disqualification from Parliament) Order 2011: Tuesday 28 June 2011. London, Stationery Office.

(1990). British companies legislation. Vol. 2.: Companies Act 1985, Insolvency Act 1986, Companies Act 1989 and related legislation. Bicester, CCH Editions.

HALLIDAY, T. C., & CARRUTHERS, B. G. (1994). Professionalization and the moral regulation of markets: corporate governance, insolvency practioners, and the English Insolvency Act 1986. [Chicago, IL.], [American Bar Foundation].

GREAT BRITAIN. (2007). Insolvency Services: Statements of sums received and paid by secretary of state for Trade & Industry under the Insolvency Act 1986 and of sums credited and debited to the investment account by the national debt commissioners for 1996/97. Cambridge [England], Proquest LLC. http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:hcpp-us&rft_dat=xri:hcpp:rec:1997-099653.

GREAT BRITAIN. (2007). Insolvency Services: Statements of sums received and paid by secretary of state for Trade & Industry under the Insolvency Act 1986 and of sums credited and debited to the investment account by the national debt commissioners for 1997/98. Cambridge [England], Proquest LLC. http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:hcpp-us&rft_dat=xri:hcpp:rec:1998-101255.

GRAN BRETAGNA, SEALY, L. S., & MILMAN, D. (1999). Annotated guide to the 1986 insolvency legislation: Insolvency act 1986, Firm directors disqualification act 1986, Insolvency rules 1986. Bicester, CCH.

SEALY, L. S., & MILMAN, D. (1991). Annotated guide to the 1986 insolvency legislation: Insolvency Act 1986, Firm Directors Disqualification Act 1986 and Insolvency Rules 1986 (as amended). Bicester, CCH Editions.

GREAT BRITAIN. (2007). Insolvency (No. 2) Bill. A bill to amend the Insolvency Act 1986 in relation to contracts of employment adopted by administrators, administrative receivers and certain other receivers ; and to make corresponding provision for Northern Ireland. Cambridge [England], Proquest LLC. http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:hcpp-us&rft_dat=xri:hcpp:rec:1993-092427.

 

[1] Heaton, J. B. (2016). Positive Equity Prices with Insolvency under Legal Solvency Tests. Browser Download This Paper.

[2] Heaton, J. B. (2016). Positive Equity Prices with Insolvency under Legal Solvency Tests. Browser Download This Paper.

[3] Morrison, D. S. (2014). To What Extent Does’ The Point of No Return’Impact on the Notion of Balance Sheet Insolvency.

[4] Morrison, D. S. (2014). To What Extent Does’ The Point of No Return’Impact on the Notion of Balance Sheet Insolvency.

[5] Morrison, D. S. (2014). To What Extent Does’ The Point of No Return’Impact on the Notion of Balance Sheet Insolvency.

[6] Garrido, P., Campos, P., & Dias, A. (2015). Balance Sheet Analysis Of Credit And Debt Networks. Advances in Complex Systems, 18(05n06), 1550025.

[7] Morrison, D. S. (2014). To What Extent Does’ The Point of No Return’Impact on the Notion of Balance Sheet Insolvency.

[8] Heaton, J. B. (2016). Positive Equity Prices with Insolvency under Legal Solvency Tests. Browser Download This Paper.

[9] Markose, S. M., Giansante, S., Eterovic, N. A., & Gatkowski, M. (2017). Early Warning and Systemic Risk in Core Global Banking: Balance Sheet Financial Network and Market Price-based Methods.

[10] SCOTLAND. (2010). Insolvency Act 1986: floating charges, foreign investment and European regulations : the power to appoint a receiver. Edinburgh, Scottish Government. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/254431/0101393.pdf.

[11] GREAT BRITAIN. (2007). Insolvency (No. 2) Bill. A bill to amend the Insolvency Act 1986 in relation to contracts of employment adopted by administrators, administrative receivers and certain other receivers ; and to make corresponding provision for Northern Ireland. Cambridge [England], Proquest LLC. http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:hcpp-us&rft_dat=xri:hcpp:rec:1993-092427.

"Are you looking for this answer? We can Help click Order Now"

UK BEST WRITING