By clicking “Accept All”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyse site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts
These cookies enable our website and App to remember things such as your region or country, language, accessibility options and your preferences and settings.
Analytic cookies help website owners to understand how visitors interact with websites by collecting and reporting information anonymously.
Marketing cookies are used to track visitors across websites. The intention is to display ads that are relevant and engaging for the individual user and thereby more valuable for publishers and third party advertisers.
The forum is for an exchange of ideas. Please offer advice or ask questions.Feel free to give me a call
I'd never read the Act, thanks for sharing. It's interesting as the highlighted portion would seem to be a huge get-out (how do you prove the desire was to put them into a better position?). I see it is assumed automatically to be true though if they are connected to the company other than by virtue purely of being an employee, unless there is clear proof they weren't influenced.Key issue is a preference arises when it is a payment or benefit is given to a creditor who is put into a better position, subject to the company giving it, being influenced by a desire to give rise to that effect. (Section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986)
Exactly. It's pretty much a slam dunk where Directors have preferred themselves.I'd never read the Act, thanks for sharing. It's interesting as the highlighted portion would seem to be a huge get-out (how do you prove the desire was to put them into a better position?). I see it is assumed automatically to be true though if they are connected to the company other than by virtue purely of being an employee, unless there is clear proof they weren't influenced.
It usually comes down to whether the company was already insolvent when the payment was made and if there was a clear 'desire to prefer' that specific creditor.looking for some advice regarding an insolvency claim regarding preferred payment.
Proving that "desire to prefer" is notoriously tricky in court when dealing with unrelated third parties. Usually, liquidators have to rely on circumstantial evidence—like a sudden change in regular payment terms, or paying off a specific supplier while ignoring critical utility bills. It rarely comes down to a smoking gun email; it's almost always about looking at the company's behavior right before everything collapsed.I'd never read the Act, thanks for sharing. It's interesting as the highlighted portion would seem to be a huge get-out (how do you prove the desire was to put them into a better position?). I see it is assumed automatically to be true though if they are connected to the company other than by virtue purely of being an employee, unless there is clear proof they weren't influenced.
Or paying a debt which is subject to a personal guaranteeProving that "desire to prefer" is notoriously tricky in court when dealing with unrelated third parties. Usually, liquidators have to rely on circumstantial evidence—like a sudden change in regular payment terms, or paying off a specific supplier while ignoring critical utility bills. It rarely comes down to a smoking gun email; it's almost always about looking at the company's behavior right before everything collapsed.