Will I have to go to court?

A pension attachment order can be used on divorce, dissolution of a civil partnership or as part of a judicial separation agreement. A pension attachment order requires payment by the pension company of some or all of a policyholder’s pension benefits to the ex-spouse or ex-civil partner, when the pension becomes payable to the policyholder. These benefits can be in the form of periodical payments (numerous payments over time and at specified intervals) or a lump sum (a single payment). If a pension attachment order is in existence and the pension concerned is transferred from one provider to another, the attachment order will be transferred to the new fund.

In practice, pension attachment orders are rarely used, as courts prefer to use pension sharing orders. Instead of paying the ex-spouse or ex-civil partner out of the policyholder’s fund, pension sharing orders divide rights under a pension scheme so that each spouse has their own independent rights under that scheme or under two separate schemes. For further details, read What is a Pension Sharing Order?

If you are eligible you will get a taxable grant of 80% of the average profits from the following tax years (where applicable):

2016-2017

2017-2018

2018-2019

HMRC will add the total profit in each of the three tax years (if applicable). This will then determine the monthly payment, subject to the cap of £2500.

This is something which is certainly on the Government’s radar as there is currently a Bill being heard in Parliament about making MHFAs a legal requirement for workplaces. It is still in the very early stages and therefore it is not clear at this stage what the outcome will be. What is clear is that this is an area which is being taken very seriously and it would not be surprising if measures were put in place regarding MHFAs in the workplace.

Partner at Ward Hadaway Adrian Ballam talks to corporate finance expert and CBILS specialist Chris Silverwood (CorpFin and cashflow.co.uk) to explore the practical ins, outs, dos and don’ts of CBILS applications, answering the questions:

1. How are banks making their assessments of whether a business can afford a CBILS loan when for many they cannot accurately forecast their revenues for at least the next three months?
2. What are the red flags that banks are looking for when assessing whether or not to grant a request for a CBILS loan?
3. What cost mitigation measures should a business have already implemented prior to applying for a CBILS loan?
4. What level of information should a business provide to support a CBILS application?
5. What common mistakes are businesses making when applying for funding?
6. What general tips do you have for businesses seeking CBILS funding?

Click read more to view the video.

Directors of a company that is in, or potentially facing, financial difficulty have a duty to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole. Failure to comply with that duty can have consequences for directors (including personal liability and disqualification if directors get it wrong).

The duty to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole begins when the company is (or in some cases is potentially or at risk of becoming) insolvent i.e. its assets are worth less than its liabilities and/or the business is unable to pay its liabilities as and when they fall due. However, just because a company is insolvent doesn’t always necessarily mean than an insolvency process is inevitable. Sometimes, the insolvency might just be caused by a temporary cashflow problem or perhaps wider problems in the business that can be overcome by making changes to the business itself.

In addition to that, the potential liability of directors ramps up even further when the company reaches the stage that the directors have concluded (or ought to have concluded) that there was no reasonable prospect of the business avoiding liquidation or administration. If the business reaches that stage, in addition to having to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole, directors can find themselves personally liable unless, from the time the directors ought to have reached that conclusion, they took every step that they ought to have done to minimise the loss to creditors. This is known as wrongful trading.

On the 25th June 2020, the government introduced new legislation – the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 – which includes measures to temporarily relax the rules around wrongful trading with the proposed changes to take effect retrospectively from the 1st March 2020. Essentially, the changes say that any court looking at a potential wrongful trading claim against a director is to assume that the director is not responsible for worsening the company’s financial position between 1st March 2020 and the 30th September 2020. Whilst the wrongful trading rules have relaxed, directors still need to proceed with caution if the business is potentially insolvent as the new Act does alter other potential pitfalls for directors, like the risk of breaching their duties or allowing the company to enter into transactions that can potentially be challenged.

The support being offered by the government is potentially a lifeline for businesses under pressure through no fault of their own, but notwithstanding the recent changes to the wrongful trading rules it is still likely to be important for the board to carefully consider whether it is appropriate to make use of the loans, grants and tax forbearance that are on offer.

Exactly what the board should consider will vary from business to business and getting it right can sometimes involve balancing several different (and at times conflicting) priorities, challenges and concerns.