The FCA has published revised consumer credit information sheets, the first update since July 2018. In accordance with section 86A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Funders are required to include a copy of the relevant information sheet when notifying a regulated customer that they are in arrears or default.
L-R Martin March, Phil Farrelly and James Whittaker
As we head into 2021 and the inevitable restructure of the economy as we (hopefully) return to some sort of normality, we thought it would be useful to share details about the depth of experience in our Insolvency team and to share some of their experiences during the lockdown.
Partner and Head of Insolvency, Phil Farrelly, will be known to many of you and has been with Bermans since 2005. He is a familiar face on the North West legal scene and has extensive experience of acting for insolvency practitioners, ABL and other lenders and directors in all aspects of corporate insolvency.
The team has recently been strengthened with the arrival of two experienced insolvency solicitors.
Bermans, commercial law firm in Liverpool and Manchester, is delighted to announce that it has promoted 6 individuals to more senior roles at the firm.
Andrew Henderson (left) joined Bermans in 1985 and has developed an expertise in asset finance litigation. He has been made a Partner and joins Alex Chapman, David Gledhill and Jonathan Berkson as partners in the specialist Asset Based Lending team that is ranked in the Legal 500 London Asset Finance Lending rankings.
He deals with matters such as fraud, freezing orders, title claims, delivery up claims, guarantee/indemnity claims, shortfalls and general debt recovery for a wide range of asset based lenders.
Whilst much uncertainty remains as to the future arrangements for asset financiers doing business across Europe, we can now say that in terms of specific legislative requirements upon the operation of asset financiers within the UK, required changes would appear to be limited to the deletion of references to “standard European consumer credit information” (SECCI) from CCA regulated consumer credit agreements as reported in our last Briefing.
On 2 December 2020, the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1248) (“2020 Regulations”) came into force, amending the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) (“1983 Regulations”).
HMRC has confirmed that, in a significant change from its previous position, as from 1 February 2021 it will regard almost all payments made upon early termination of asset finance agreements as chargeable to VAT.
HM Treasury (HMT) has just published The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 which make changes to the content and form of Default Notices set out in the 1983 Regulations.
These come into effect on 2 December 2020. Firms will have 6 months thereafter to implement them.
Back in 2004, Porter Capital Corporation (“Porter”), a US finance Company based in Birmingham, Alabama, financed a US corporation (“Corporation”) via an invoice finance facility. To secure the finance, they took guarantees from three guarantors, one of whom lived in London and was a co-owner of a valuable Knightsbridge apartment on Hyde Park in London and shares in a family company. The finance documentation was expressed to be under Connecticut law.
By 2008, things were going wrong for the Corporation and by March 2010 just prior to the Corporation’s Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in the US, Porter wrote making its demand for the account shortfall against the finance agreement’s three guarantors.
The High Court has recently held that a party who made contractual representations as to the validity of an aircraft lease was contractually estopped from subsequently alleging that the agreement was invalid.
In Wallis Trading Inc v Air Tanzania Company Limited [2020] EWHC 339 (Comm) the lessee (Air Tanzania) made certain representations including that the lease was legal and valid, and that it had obtained all required authorisations and consents to enable it to enter into and perform the lease. Air Tanzania later argued that the lease was invalid because (among other things) it had failed to comply with Tanzanian public procurement laws.