Author: Nikki Petken When I get older, losing my hair, many years from now …… will you still need me…… when I’m sixty-five? The answer from businesses to Paul McCartney’s love song today will be … No. The high court has ruled that is legal for UK employers to force workers to retire at the age of 65. In this case, the court was required to determine if forcing people to retire at 65 is against European law. The ruling means that employers can dismiss a member of staff without a redundancy payment on their 65th birthday. This is still subject to following the correct procedure and the worker can request to work beyond that date which an employer must consider but can refuse without having to give a reason. It is never as simple as it seems however, as the government has said they will review the retirement age in 2010 and at which point they could choose to end the default retirement age.
Read the original here:
Heyday Decision - “When I’m 65…”
Author: Simon Walsh Experian’s announcement that 25% fewer firms became insolvent in August 2009 compared to July 2009 is welcome not only in its own right, but also because it continues a trend of positive economic indicators which has developed over the last month or so. On top of this, the FTSE 100 is currently managing to stay above the 5000 mark and some big ticket M&A announcements regarding Cadbury’s and Kraft as well as T-Mobile and Orange have lead to more positive sentiment being expressed in many quarters. Such upbeat comment can only be welcomed after the plethora of bad news which has been dolled out for so many months and whilst no one is prepared to call recent events as a recovery, the signs are increasingly that there are more opportunities for businesses to exploit if they can position themselves correctly. However, such opportunities must always be looked at in context and deals should not be done at any price. Proper customer/product due diligence is still required and, if anything, greater care should be taken in the current climate because dealing with disputes when human and financial resources are under more pressure than ever can quickly have a disproportionate and counterproductive effect on a business. Simple steps that we are currently seeing being overlooked when contracts are being negotiated include:- Not taking steps properly to investigate a potential customer’s or supplier’s financial standing. Accepting your customer’s or supplier’s terms and conditions without either asking to see these where they are simply referred to on a purchase order or giving them the proper attention they warrant if they are provided. Not seeking to assert your own terms and conditions in place of, or alongside, your customer’s / supplier’s terms and thereby losing the protection of valuable limitation and/or exclusion provisions or, worse, more generous payment terms. There will always be cases where there is very limited scope for negotiation. However, our experience suggests that both suppliers and buyers recognise that in the current climate more realistic provisions have to be taken to secure a signature on an order form and a few simple questions can often lead to more favourable terms being secured which could well pay dividends and avoid potentially costly problems further down the line should unanticipated problems arise.
See the original post:
Insolvencies Fall, But Care Is Still Needed
Author: Guy Thomas The recent coverage concerning the “Pheonix 4”, and especially the comments of Business Secretary Lord Mandelson, might lead people to believe that the directors concerned were facing the imminent threat of a life ban from acting as directors. In reality, it would be surprising if the directors concerned were subsequently found to be “unfit” to act as directors and banned from acting as directors in the future for anything more then five years (if at all). The Companies Act 2006 provides that a director’s primary duty is to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its shareholders’ members’ as a whole. However, where the company is in financial difficulties and is likely to become insolvent, the directors must also have regard to the interests of the company’s creditors. The Insolvency Act 1986 contains various concepts such as fraudulent or wrongful trading, which, if applicable, qualify a director’s primary duty. A finding of fraudulent or wrongful trading would also be relevant to the possible application of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA 1986) and is almost certain to lead to the disqualification of a director. Under the CDDA 1986, the court has the power to disqualify directors from acting as such, or being involved with the management of a company, for a specified period of time, the minimum period being two years. The grounds for making disqualification orders under the CDDA 1986 include where the court is satisfied that the director’s conduct makes him “unfit to be concerned in the management of a company”. In considering whether to make a disqualification order, the court will look to see whether there has been dishonest conduct, whereas ordinary commercial misjudgements would not be enough to justify disqualification. Practical considerations Directors should monitor the financial position of their company carefully and regularly review the management accounts. If concerned seek early advice from a specialist. Hold regular board meetings and keep appropriate minutes. Be aware that the directors’ conduct will be scrutinised later in the event of insolvency. If in doubt, avoid taking on further credit other than in the ordinary course of business and take action to ensure that as far as possible no further debts are incurred and avoid “vulnerable transactions”.
Read the original post:
Do the “Pheonix Four” Really Face Disqualification as Directors?
