Author: Guy Thomas   An interesting piece from Business Advisory and Insolvency specialists BDO that reminds directors of football clubs that as the fans enjoy the thrill of the competition in South Africa, it shouldn’t distract them from their own issues closer to home. www.bdoadvisorybites.co.uk/index.php?id=298&uid=6270

See original here: 
Enjoy the Game…

Author Chris Cook When I think of the world cup I think of 3 things: Gazza’s tears, penalty shoot out disappointments and…unexplained work place absence! There is simply no getting away from the fact that some fans are so passionate about the team they support that they might be tempted to ‘pull a sickie’ to watch critical matches. Here are my tip tips for managing “World Cup Fever” Flexible hours   - allow employees to take the time off to watch the games provided that they make up the hours at a different time Shift swaps - allow employees to swap shifts in order for them to be able to watch the games as long as an appropriate level of cover is organised Unpaid leave - allow employees to take unpaid leave provided that this does not interfere with business operations Annual leave - remind employees that they will need to book annual leave in advance if they wish to watch the games, with approval of such request based on maintaining adequate staffing levels. TV/radio in the background - allow employees to have the TV or radio on in the background so that they can keep track of the games as they work or having special screenings of the games on the premises.  Remember if you are planning to show the matches at work make sure you have a TV licence and you have paid your PRS licence Not everyone is a football fan - employees should be treated fairly and equally at all times. You could therefore consider offering an incentive to anyone who agrees to work through the matches when they are being screened in the office In summary when managing your employees’ during the world cup …….. “You’ve got to hold and give , But do it at the right time , You can be slow or fast , But you must get to the line , They’ll always hit you and hurt you , Defend and attack , There’s only one way to beat them Get round the back”   New order  “World in Motion”  1990 Come on England!!!!

Go here to read the rest: 
Be on the ball: How to successfully manage World Cup “Fever”

Author: Nat Young The European Court of Justice has finally ruled on the question of the application of trademark law to keywords. When someone enters a trademarked word into an internet search engine, the natural result is that sites including the trademarked word appear, in order of relevance. However, search engine providers often guarantee traders that their sites will appear as sponsored links in the event someone enters certain terms. This practice - particularly associated with Google’s Adwords system - means that a website can appear as a result of a search even without the search term being displayed on the site. Trademark proprietors are usually unhappy about this practice, since it means that their websites appear alongside competitor’s websites, even where a search had been made for their specific mark. This means that unofficial or even counterfeit sellers can gain as much prominence for their sites as official distributors. On the other hand, the use of registered trademarks as paid-for keywords is clearly a rather different kind of use to that usually in issue in trademark litigation. Normally, a trademark is used when it appears as a visible sign. With paid for keywords, the trademark did not need to be shown on a site for it to appear in the list of sponsored sites. The trademark was processed in a way invisible to the consumer carrying out the search. The issue has been often considered in the US courts, but in the UK there was much less authority on the point. Thus trademark lawyers were eagerly awaiting the ECJ’s decision in Google France v Louis Vuitton Malletier , which concerned the use of Louis Vuitton’s trademarks by Google via Adwords. In simple terms, the court cleared Google, deciding that search engine providers could have a system of keywords without that amounting to trade mark infringement. However, the court was not so accommodating to advertisers who used others’ trade marks as paid-for keywords. It held that they could still be liable, if their sites made it difficult or impossible for the average internet user to tell if the goods came from the trade mark proprietor or a third party. For this reason, there are still uncertainties from the point of view of traders using keywords, as opposed to search engine providers. Trade mark proprietors will no doubt start looking in this direction, and it will be interesting to see what tests the courts develop when considering what makes it ‘difficult’ for the average internet user to tell the origin of goods.

Read more:
The Searching Question: An Answer at Last

Author: Guy Thomas In a dramatic turn of events, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) have announced that they will not use the next listed hearing to pursue its challenge to the appointment of Administrators by Pointpin Limited, the British Virgin Island based company which is controlled by Mr. Chainrai. Although the hearing, scheduled to be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Monday 15th March 2010, will still go ahead; the anticipated tussle will not be as spectacular as many had awaited. It has been further reported that “Despite HMRC continuing to have a number of remaining questions and concerns around the relationships of various parties, and a lack of detail of financial affairs, HMRC has now advised the Administrators that we will no longer challenge the validity of the Administrator’s appointment.” “This comes in light of the additional material now provided following the judge’s directions of 2 March 2010.” Portsmouth and its’ Administrators should not feel completely reassured by the further reporting that HMRC are “still not happy” but “do not see any benefit in continuing an expensive, long-running, legal protest against the club”.  What now? In no particular order, some of the things that are still to come in this administration include: 1. HMRC will keep a close eye on events; they can do this through a creditors committee (which is meant to oversee the actions and fees of the Administrator). 2. Unsecured creditors (like HMRC) put in their proof of debt to the Administrator setting out what they are owed [most creditors do this without taking legal advice]. 3. Statutory Investigations will be carried out by the Administrator into the conduct of the club, its directors and any who acted as if they were directors. The Administrator submits a “D” report to the Secretary of State for BIS. 4. The directors finalise their statement of affairs and a report goes out to creditors on the events that led to formal insolvency. This may include their view of when the club became insolvent. This is usually followed by a meeting of the creditors to vote on the housekeeping issues for the Administration. 5. The League will decide on the first part of the likely point’s deductions. Part “two” will depend on the outcome of any proposal to exit the Administration. The exit the League usually expects is a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement. 6. The Administrator will continue to look for savings in costs. Players are unlikely to be made redundant. The Professional Footballers’ Association has strong influence in this area. However that doesn’t exclude the likelihood that loan agreements will be cancelled to save the salary costs. It’s been reported Pompey having six temporary signings on their books. 7. The Administrator looks to realize assets for creditors and or raise finance to allow continuing trading. It has been reported that Mr Chainrai will provide the funding and the Administrator is looking for bids. Anyone got a spare £15 million?

Read the rest here:
Portsmouth FC continued: HMRC thow in the towel…but “still not happy”

Author: Guy Thomas So what happens if a notice has been filed at the High Court giving warning of an Administration and that notice of intention to appoint is followed by a notice of appointment on Friday? Administration of the Club A fresh start, free of the unsecured creditors? Not quite. The Premier League still retain strong influence on the outcome. It’s well known by now that when the club goes into Administration then the Premier League will deduct at least nine points. What is less appreciated is how stance of the Premier League will effect how the Club will exit from Administration. The football authorities place a strong emphasis on the treatment of unsecured creditors. The main weapon in their arsenal is the so called “golden share” i.e. the club’s membership of the league.  The League prefers a Company Voluntary Arrangement or CVA. This is a procedure which allows a company to put a proposal to its creditors for an agreement, under which the creditors agree to accept a certain reduced sum of money in settlement of the debts due to them. The procedure is flexible and the form reflects what is acceptable to the creditors. The proposed arrangement needs the approval of at least 75% in value of the creditors, whether or not they voted in favour of it. The Court has a limited role and the arrangement is managed by a licensed insolvency practitioner or Supervisor. If the Club (in administration) wants to avoid further penalties from the League they will prefer to “exit” Administration via a CVA. This will give the power back to the unsecured creditors (like HMRC) as to whether they agree with the proposal. If the CVA proposal fails and the exit from Administration is carried out any other way (e.g. Leeds United /Luton Town FC) then further penalties of at least 20 points could be applied.  Clearly this will affect the value of the Club and influence the decisions of its future investors. The CVA procedure was introduced by the Insolvency Act 1986 and was designed primarily as a mechanism for business rescue. The procedure is also often used instead of liquidation as a means of distributing funds on the conclusion of (and, occasionally, during) an administration. Procedure for CVA a. Proposal: A proposal can be made by Directors of the Club or its Administrator. b. Nominee: Insolvency practitioner nominated under terms of proposal to supervise its implementation. Where the company is in administration, the Administrator may act as nominee. c. Where nominee is not administrator they have to notify the court whether, in his opinion, a meeting of creditors should be held in order to consider the proposal. Where nominee is administrator the Nominee proceeds directly to convene creditors’ meeting. d. Creditors’ meeting: Usually held within eight weeks of the notice of the proposal. The meeting may approve, modify or reject proposal and/or may choose another nominee. Requires a majority of 75 % in value of the creditors present and voting. The rights of secured or preferential creditors need to be taken into account too. e. Supervisor: If the proposal is approved, the nominee becomes the supervisor and implements the arrangement in accordance with the terms of the proposal. What about the hearing on Monday? Liquidation still looms, appointment of an Administrator by a “qualifying charge holder” is the only way to avoid the hearing on Monday. Even if that appointment happens on Friday however, an Administration, started by the filing of a Form 2.6B at the High Court (Notice of appointment of an Administrator by a by a Qualifying Charge Holder) only suspends the winding up petition. It will still loom in the background if the administration doesn’t pan out as intended. For more information on this story as it unfolds keep an eye on our blog. Also, I would recommend reading  ‘Portsmouth move closer to entering administration’  which was published on the BBC website and ‘Portsmouth administration may trigger 20-point deduction next season’ which appeared in the Guardian.

Read more here: 
Portsmouth FC: After the Administration… a Corporate Voluntary Arrangement?

Author: Chris Alexander First Quench Retailing Limited, owner of Threshers, Haddows, the Local and Wine Rack brands has gone into administration.  With around 1,300 outlets nationwide there will be many nervous landlords concerned about what administration means for them and their rental income. Tenant insolvency is an increasing phenomenon as the difficult economic conditions persist.  The recession is impacting upon businesses of all sectors occupying every type of commercial premises.  Alongside employment costs, rent is a large item of a businesses expenditure and can be one of the first expenses a struggling tenant will default on. Once a tenant enters into a formal insolvency procedure, whether it be administration an IVA/CVA, receivership, or liquidation a landlord is likely to loose out financially to some extent along with the other creditors (unless they can rely on a personal guarantees or other similar security).  Formal tenant insolvency can also complicate attempts to urgently recover possession of a property from a defaulting tenant, thereby frustrating attempts to re-let the property and preserve the rental income. It is prudent for landlords to maintain a close relationship with their tenants and not to allow significant arrears to accumulate.  This is because once an insolvency procedure has been initiated, in many cases, there will be a moratorium on enforcement action which will prevent a landlord from taking any form of enforcement action against the tenant (generally without permission of either the Court or an insolvency practitioner).  Such delays can prove even more expensive for landlords who are already facing significant rent arrears. We would always encourage landlord’s to take advice at an early stage before their options begin to narrow.

The rest is here:
With First Quench Retailing in administration what can Landlords do to protect themselves from insolvent tenants

Author: Helen Duffy A former police sergeant is suing Kent Police under the Disability Discrimination Act (“DDA”).  She suffers from a voice disorder, which results in her generally only being able to speak in a whisper.  She wanted to become a dog handler but experienced problems because she could not shout controls to the animals.  She claims that the force did not give her the opportunity to carry out the dog training.  She has further claimed that she felt discriminated against after being asked to attend a meeting with the assistant chief constable after she left. When an employee suffers from a ‘disability’ under the DDA, an employer is obliged to make any ‘reasonable’ adjustments in order to assist that person in their employment.  However, there is a limit to what is ‘reasonable’. It seems in this case that there is little that can be done if the employee’s disability actually prevents her from being able to do her job.  Perhaps the dogs could be communicated to through whistle commands, but it would certainly go beyond reasonableness to expect the police force to re-train all of its dogs to respond to whistle, rather than shout commands, simply to cater for one officer’s disability. Employers are (and indeed should be) expected to assist employees with disabilities in any way that is reasonable, but there is a limit to what is expected of an employer. The Tribunal Judge made his opinion clear in his comment that, “The Disability Discrimination Act is not a charter to blame someone for everything that happens to them in life”

Read more from the original source:
When a “reasonable” adjustment is “unreasonable”

Andria Bolton

Local Solicitors UK | Compensation UK

Author: Chris Cook SA Law won the toss and elected to bat - openers Satinder and the skipper got off to a lively start with some unexpected quick singles until Satinder was caught off a top edge.  Chris A joined the skipper at the crease, both batting well to retire after reaching 25.  Gary and Terence then formed a useful middle order partnership, both experiencing some good fortune as catches were spilled by the opposition.  Terrence T had a rare failure with the bat after trying to force the pace in the last few overs.  The returning Simon then reminded the team of his “talents” from former years as he joined Terence at the end of the innings to lift the score to a respectable 104 from SA Law’s 16 overs.   In reply, both Terrence and Satinder had tidy opening spells to keep the Rayner Essex openers below the required run rate, assisted by some enthusiastic fielding as always, most notably from the ever-exuberant Nat and Terence.  Matthew had trouble finding a good line and length and was punished by some solid stroke play by a suspiciously Aussie-looking Shane Richards, although later improved and was rewarded with a wicket.  Chris A also bowled well, his first ball clean bowling Rayner Essex’s opening batsman.  As the pressure mounted towards the end of the innings, SA Law’s fielding started to become suspect, as Gary, the usually dependable Terrence and Simon all spilled catches.  Terence was left to bowl the last over with Rayner Essex needing 8 runs to win, and with a streaky two through the slips, a dropped catch for which the batsmen ran two and a powerfully struck four from the third ball, Rayner Essex reached their target with three balls to spare to record their seventh straight win of the summer.   The team will look to drown their sorrows from a season of defeats at the end of season curry night next month.

See the original post here:
SA Law v Rayner Essex Accountants - Cricket Match

Andria Bolton

Local Solicitors UK | Compensation UK

Author: Vanessa James Over the past 12 months many employers have had to make redundancies and even though some commentators claim the ‘green shoots’ of recovery are here, businesses are still feeling the effects of the downturn. Businesses could potentially cut back their workforces yet further, but they run the risk of losing valuable talent which could jeopardise the business in the long term. But what are the alternatives? Well I was recently commissioned to write an article for PAY Magazine entitled ‘Imposing Contractual Changes’ , which outlines some of the alternatives such as how to lawfully announce pay freezes or pay cuts and how to negotiate with employees and avoid the risk of claims such as breach of contract.

See the rest here:
Alternatives to Redundancy

Andria Bolton

Local Solicitors UK | Compensation Claims UK

Author: Keith Docking The recent Court decision where a wife 22 years after separation received a lump sum of £220,000 is a salutary lesson for parties who do not finalise their financial affairs post separation.  The Court decision reinforces the principle that the needs of the parties will always take preference over contribution arguments.  In this case the majority of the assets were derived from an inheritance received by the husband post separation.  This emphasises the importance of entering into an agreement and ensuring that the agreement will be binding. Please click here to view the article that appeared in The Times, If you’re interested in learning more about this case.

Read more: 
Divorce settlement granted after 22 years of being separated