#Insolvency practitioner | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

anotherhumaninthisworld · 2 years ago

Note

Tell me the story of robespierre's father from the beginning.

[what happened to robespierre's father after he left? Did he leave his country? Or settled in another province after that? Did he never made any contact with one of his family? did his children knew anything about him through their lives like for example the time when he died?]

Maximilien Barthélémy François de Robespierre was born in Arras on 17 February 1732 and baptised five days later. There exists some controversy in regards to what his real first name was, considering we have one document designating him as Barthélémy-François, and another one as just Barthélémy (although ironically, it has been more common among authors to call him François and not Barthélémy). Historian Hervé Leuwers still insists that his real firstname seems to have been Maximilien, as it’s what his contemporary Abbé Proyart calls him in his La Vie et les Crimes de Robespierre: surnommé le tyran: depuis sa naissance jusqu’au sa mort (1795), as well as the only name indicating his inhumation in 1777.

Whatever the case, Maximilien was the oldest of five children (of which four reached adulthood). Their mother was Marie-Marguerite Françoise de Robespierre (born 1708, née Poiteau) and their father the lawyer Maximilien de Robespierre (born 1694).

On April 21, 1749, a seventeen year old Maximilien presented himself, along with his companion the Sieur Gorbu, to the monks of Dammartin to prepare his novitiate. But June 17 the same year, he declared to the abbot "that he was not made for the religious stall, and had only desired it in order to please his parents.” He therefore left and returned to his hometown. After classical studies at the Jesuit college in Arras, he studied law at the University of Douai, where he obtained his license, and on December 30, 1756, he was received as a lawyer at the Council of Artois and took the required oath.

The reports we have regarding Maximilien’s persona are few, often contradictory, and perhaps colored more by what its authors thought about his son with the same name than by the actual facts. The two most used accounts are on one hand the memoirs (1834) of his oldest daughter Charlotte, who is bias in his favor, and on the other hand the aforementioned La Vie et les crimes de Robespierre, surnommé Le Tyran… (1795) by his contemporary Liévin-Bonaventure Proyart, who is holtile towards him. According to the latter, Maximilien was ”a lawyer with little occupation at the Superior Council of Artois. [He] had the reputation, in the town of Arras, to be somewhat scatterbrained, and above all, fond of his own opinions.” Charlotte on the other hand writes that her father ”had acquired great consideration by his probity and his virtues; he was honored and cherished by the whole town.” According to La jeunesse de Robespierre et la convocation des Etats généraux en Artois (1870), Maximilien was charged with 34 cases in 1763 and 32 in 1764, which suggests he carried some prestige as a lawyer. A thermidorian pampleth it also titled La Jeunesse de Robespierre still claims that Maximilien ”had lights and probity, but his economy was not a virtuous one. Not knowing how to proportion the product of his labor to expenses, he sought resources in loans, contracted debts and died insolvent” and M. Devienne, former procureur at the Council of Artois, called him ”un avocat pauvre et un pauvre avocat.”

At some point, Maximilien met Jacqueline Marguerite Carraut (born 1735), daughter of an arragois brewer. On January 2 1758, when Jacqueline was already around four months pregnant, their marriage contract was signed before M. Crépieux and M. Botte, notaries, M. Corroyer, prosecutor, as well as Jacqueline’s mother Marie-Marguerite Carraut (born 1693, née Cornu), father Jacques-François Carraut (born 1701) and younger brother Augustin-Isidore Carraut (born 1737). One day later the wedding ceremony was held, now in the presence of M. Monvoisin, practitioner, M. Corroyer, prosecutor, M. Botte, notary, Jacques-François Carraut and Augustin Carraut. Maximilien’s parents, as we can see, were present for neither of these two events, perhaps a sign they disapproved of the hasty marriage that was undoubtly related to Jacqueline’s pregnancy. We can however imagiene they made their peace, considering Maximilien’s father was made godfather of the expected child when it was born in May the same year. Maximilien’s mother was also made godmother of the couple’s third child, born three years later.

On April 17 1762 Maximilien’s father died, at the age of 67. Maximilien’s name featured on the death certificate when he was buried in the church of Saint-Aubert two days later. When his wife Jacqueline on July 16 two years later died in the aftermath of the birth of their fifth child (that died as well) his signature does however elude said certificate.

On August 6 1764, Maximilien retook his duties as lawyer after having spent a few weeks without doing any business, winning and losing a case that very same day. However, on November 16 his name disappeared from the court register again, and on January 7 he was received as a lawyer at the court of Oisy, about 20 kilometers from Arras, after having been called on by Eustache-Joseph d'Assignies, count of Oisy, to take a prestigious seat there, “on the express condition of taking up residence in said Oisy and not being able to demand from us any sums for fees in criminal cases” eight days earlier.

It’s hard to tell if he had lived alone with his four children up until that point, or if he had handed them off to relatives right after his wife’s death. Regardless, the second option must at least have happened now. According to the memoirs of Charlotte, she and the youngest daughter Henriette went to live with their father’s two surviving siblings, Eulalie and Henriette, while their two brothers were taken in by their maternal grandparents.

If we’re to believe Abbé Proyart, this was not the first time Maximilien had abandoned his family, he had in fact already done so about a year before his wife’s death:

Either from oddity of character or inconvenience of profession, on the run from a lost lawsuit, he abruptly left his country, where he left his wife and the four children of whom we have just spoken. […] Robespierre, a few years after the disappearance of his father, lost his mother, and found himself orphaned at the age of nine [sic].

However, I could find no historian noting any absences in the court register prior to November 1764, so it’s possible Proyart is mistaken here.

Charlotte on the other hand, makes her father’s leave be all about a broken heart:

[Jacqueline] was no less of a good wife than a good mother. Her death was a lightning strike to the heart of our poor father. He was inconsolable. Nothing could divert him from his sorrow; he no longer pleaded, nor occupied himself with business; he was entirely consumed with chagrin. He was advised to travel for some time to distract himself; he followed this advice and left: but, alas! We never saw him again; the pitiless death took him as it had already taken our mother. I do not know what country he died in. He will have doubtless succumbed to a sorrow which became unsupportable.

While Charlotte’s version is harder to completely dismiss, it can at least be nuanced. Unlike what her account leads you to believe at first, this was far from the final time Maximilien sat foot in Arras, as will be seen below. It’s however hard to know if this means he was in contact with his children anymore after this. It can be observed that Charlotte, Maximilien and Henriette spent the majority of the year away at schools far from Arras since 1768, 1769 and 1771 respectively, so it’s unlikely they met their father during at least any of his later stays in the town.

On March 13 1765 Maximilien was back in Arras again, four months before the expiration of his position at Oisy. He started pleading a case that carried on all the way into December of the same year. From the same month we also have this rather ironic letter to his fellow lawyer Maximilien Baudelot, which confirms he was still active in Arras. In the letter, Maximilien tried to get the lawyers of the town to all come together and publicy plead for the betterment of the the ill dauphin (Louis XVI’s father) who passed away eleven days later:

Monsieur, All the hearts taking their flight towards the sky, are resounding the aors of their plaintive accents; they pray, they conjure, they demand again with loud cries the worthy object of their love which they believe they have already delighted, so much do they fear losing it: ours are the only ones whose voices we do not hear; would they indeed be as mute and as motionless as they appear? No, mine answers for all; all at this moment breathe through it. I don’t know what has kept their movements secret until now, and they have undoubtedly prevented, in spite of themselves, from showing outside the fires of love which consume them within. Several times, I have seen it, we have come together to deliberate on certain matters which do not deserve our attention: deciding nothing then, is what we could have done best: only once when it is a question of giving the King a pure, solemn, and indispensable pledge of our attachment to the royal family, shall we fear that it might be said that we have assembled? Lawyers, this title honors us; subjects of France, is a quality a thousand times more glorious for us; it is only by fulfilling it as the most glorious of our duties, in a noble and uncommon manner, that we will truly prove the nobility of our profession and that we will maintain under the asylum of the throne freedom and independence. I expect, Monsieur, from your feelings, the justice due to mine. I have the honor to be with the deepest respect Monsieur, Your most humble and obedient servant Derobespierre (sic), Lawyer Arras December 9th 1765

We find Maximilien pleading yet another case in Arras on March 3 1766. A few weeks later, on March 22, he borrowed seven hundred livres from his sister Henriette, who supposedly asked that he in turn resign from any inheritance from their mother. Two years later, on October 30 1768, we therefore find the following note:

I, the undersigned, lawyer at the Provincial Council of Artois, renounce, for the benefit of my sisters, my rights and shares in the movable and immovable estates of my mother, acknowledging that I have received from said mother beyond the share that I could claim, both for me and for my children. Written at Arras, the thirtieth day of October, 1768 (Signed): DEROBESPIERRE

Sometime after this Maximilien left Arras again. His two sisters were however aware of his whereabouts, as they were able to inform him about their death of their mother on June 8, 1770. In return, Maximilien wrote the following note, confirming his resignation from the inheritance. As we can see from it, he was by then residing in the German town of Mannheim:

I, the undersigned, lawyer at the Provincial Council of Artois, hereby renounce for the benefit of my sisters all rights and shares in the movable and immovable estates of my late mother, acknowledging that I have received from said mother beyond the share that I could claim, both for me and for my children. Written at Mannheim, June 8, 1770

On October 3 1771 Maximilien was once again back in Arras and once again affirming his resignation from the inheritance:

Before the undersigned royal notaries of Artois appeared M. Maximilien-Barthélemy-François de Robespierre, lawyer at the Superior Council of Arras, residing in said Arras. Who recognized that, by an act made under his private signature, in the city of Mannheim, on the eighth day of June 1770, he declared that he renounced the movable and immovable successions of lady Marie-Marguerite-Françoise Poiteau, his mother, at the time of her death widow of M. Maximilien de Robespierre, lawyer at the Council of Artois. But, having since considered that this renunciation could not have its effect, considering that at that time, he did not have full and complete knowledge of the forces of said succession and that, since his return to this town, three months ago, he has taken perfect knowledge of said estates by inspecting the letters and papers abandoned by said mother, which Marie-Marguerite-Alexandrine-Eléonore-Eulalie and Amable-Aldegonde-Henriette de Robespierre, his sisters, represented and entrusted to him. This is why said sieur appearing has, hereby, declared to renounce said successions and to claim nothing hereunder, giving power to the bearer of the bulk hereof to reiterate where and to whom it will belong. And just now said ladies Marie-Marguerite-Alexandre-Eléonore-Eulalie and Aimable-Aldegonde-Henriette de Robespierre have appered; these have recognized that said sieur de Robespierre, their brother, has given them the titles and papers mentioned herein. Passed in Arras, the third of October, 1771. (Signed): de ROBESPIERRE; de ROBESPIERRE, the older; de ROBESPIERRE, the younger, (and as notaries): MERCHIER, HUSSON.

Maximilien now returned to plead in Arras again for a while — his name reappears on the court register of the Council of Artois from February 17 to June 4 1772. After this however, there’s no sign of any activities in the town. In 1795, Proyart claimed to know more details about his whereabouts:

We had ignored until now the route he had taken. We have just discovered that on leaving his homeland, he went to Belgium, from where his family originated. He passed from there to Germany, and lived for some time in the town of Cologne, where, to survive, he opened a French school for children. Unsatisfied with his new profession, he left Cologne, announcing the intention of going to London and then to the Isles, where it was possible that he still lives: well done, in that case, if, by the silence of the differetion, he hides what would reflect upon him the shameful celebrity of his son.

Regardless, on November 6 1777 Maximilien was buried not in London but in Munich, aged 45. All historians I’ve checked up on have concluded that it’s unlikely his relatives found out about his death (as suggested by a decree written around 1795 by Armand Joseph Guffroy (old lawyer colleage of Maximilien II and friend/ally? of Charlotte), stating that ”their father who had abandoned them died in a hospital at [blank]” and Charlotte’s own memoirs where she underlines ”I do not know in which country he died”). It would however appear they settled with the conviction that he would never return, because when Maximilien’s sister Henriette and her husband François-Gabriel Durut in 1780 wanted to get back the money he had borrowed fourteen years earlier and never returned, they turned to his oldest son to get him to pay what his father owed rather than trying to get into contact with said father again:

Hearing of April 4, 1780: M. Corne, for François-Gabriel Durut, doctor of medicine, and Amélie-Aldegonde-Henriette Derobespierre, his wife; Against François-Maximilien-Barthelemy de Robespierre; Gentlemen give default against François-Maximilien Robespierre and for the benefit, hold the signature affixed by the defaulting party at the bottom of a recognition of March 22 1766 which it is about for recognized; Consequently, we condemn said defaulting party to pay to the parties of the attorney Corne, for one part, the sum of seven hundred and eleven livres ten sols, centenary in said recognition, and for another part, the sum of one hundred livres paid in his acquittal to the notary Husson, for pension provided to him according to the receipt of March 14, 1772 and in question, in the interest of the sums quoted from the day of the judicial demand and at the costs, liquidated at fifteen livres eighteen sols eight denarii.

Sources: same as for this post

#robespierre #maximilen robespierre #charlotte robespierre #abbé proyart #ask #frev #daddy issues

35 notes · View notes

brianmurphy111 · 7 months ago

Text

Brian Murphy: A Beacon of Excellence in Accounting and Advisory Services

In the dynamic world of finance and business advisory, few names resonate as strongly as Brian Murphy. Renowned for his meticulous approach and broad expertise, Brian stands out as a pivotal figure in the Irish business landscape. With over 25 years of rich commercial experience, he currently spearheads the Corporate Advisory business in Ireland, specializing in value creation and elevating business performance across diverse sectors.

Background and Early Career

Brian Murphy accountant journey in the field of accounting and business advisory is marked by a steadfast dedication to excellence. Born in the early 1970s, Brian demonstrated an early interest in numbers and financial strategies. Pursuing his passion, he earned his qualifications as a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland and became an associate of the Irish Tax Institute.These solid foundations have paved the way for a distinguished career marked by significant achievements and leadership roles.

A Distinguished Professional Path

As the director of a prominent company in Ireland, Brian's vast experience spans commercial, industrial, and technical arenas. His role involves leading Ireland & Corporate Advisory business, where he has been instrumental in driving growth and improving operational efficiencies for numerous organizations. Brian’s expertise covers a wide range of financial disciplines, including corporate finance, restructuring (both corporate and personal), and forensic accounting — a testament to his versatile skill set.

Brian Murphy accountant significant contributions extend to mergers and acquisitions , where he is celebrated for his nuanced and expert advice in finance raising, business and strategic planning, Brian Murphy, accountant significant contributions extend to mergers and acquisitions where and conducting financial reviews. His analytical prowess and strategic insight make him a trusted advisor in these complex transactions.

Contributions to Corporate Finance and Restructuring

Brian Murphy is not only a seasoned accountant but also a licensed Insolvency Practitioner. His work in this domain has helped countless companies navigate through challenges associated with gearing and trading difficulties. His proactive involvement in performance improvement and cost rationalization initiatives has been vital for businesses looking to optimize their operations and enhance profitability.

In recognition of his contributions to the field, Brian served as the former Chairman of the Northern Ireland R3 Committee, the trade body for recovery and restructuring professionals. This role positioned him at the forefront of developments in the recovery sector, influencing policies and practices that impact the industry at large.

Leadership in Audit and Assurance

Brian Murphy’s role as a partner in Audit & Assurance within the Consumer & Technology Business team at Deloitte has been marked by exemplary leadership and an unwavering commitment to delivering top-notch audit and advisory services. Since joining Deloitte five years ago, he has enriched the firm with his deep industry knowledge, gained from over 14 years of experience in sectors ranging from retail and manufacturing to construction, real estate, engineering, hospitality, and technology.

His client portfolio is impressively diverse, primarily encompassing large privately-owned businesses, both family-owned and private equity-backed. This role allows him to impact a wide array of businesses, fostering growth and sustainability in a rapidly changing economic environment.

Educational and Community Engagement

Beyond his professional endeavors, Brian is deeply committed to education and continuous learning within the financial community. He is a prolific lecturer and presenter, often speaking on topics related to audit, financial accounting/reporting, and finance under the auspices of Chartered Accountants Ireland.

His dedication to the community is further evidenced by his roles in various chair positions, including past Chair of Chartered Accountants Ireland Leinster Society and current Chair of CA Support. Through these roles, Brian actively contributes to the welfare and development of accounting professionals, nurturing the next generation of leaders in the field.

Media and Public Engagement

Brian Murphy is a recognized voice in local press, often commenting on current trends, challenges, and opportunities for businesses in Northern Ireland. His insights are frequently sought after by local parliament, where he advises on strategic financial issues, reflecting his stature and respect in the professional community.

Conclusion

Brian Murphy’s career is a beacon of leadership, expertise, and dedication. His comprehensive approach to solving complex business challenges, coupled with his commitment to the community and the profession, makes him a distinguished figure in the Irish accounting and business advisory landscape. As businesses continue to navigate the complexities of modern economies, leaders like Brian Murphy remain indispensable in guiding them towards sustainable success.

#Brian Murphy #Brain Murphy accountant

1 note · View note

simpleliquidation12 · 2 years ago

Text

Trust Agent to Start your Simple Liquidation process.

Simple Liquidation was designed to provide the best and most simple solutions to liquidate a company. we are `licensed and authorized to act in relation to an insolvent individual, partnership, or company. Our Insolvency Practitioners have over 30 years of experience. we are also members of the Insolvency Practitioners Association. Our team is able to advise which is the best insolvency solution for your individual needs. For Consultation Contact us on 0800 246 5895.

#Liquidation #Company clouser

2 notes · View notes

thellawtoknow · 1 month ago

Text

Receivership: Understanding the 7 Big Implications behind the Legal Concept

What is Receivership? Understanding the Legal Concept What is Receivership? Types of Receivership1. Administrative Receivership 2. Court-Appointed Receivership How Does Receivership Work?1. Appointment of a Receiver 2. Receiver Takes Control of Assets and Operations 3. Asset Liquidation or Business Recovery 4. Reporting to Creditors and Stakeholders 5. Distribution of Funds Receivership in Corporate Restructuring Receivership vs. Bankruptcy: What’s the Difference? Pros and Cons of ReceivershipPros: Cons: When is Receivership Used? Conclusion: Is Receivership the Right Solution? What is Receivership? Understanding the Legal Concept Receivership is a legal process used as a remedy for distressed financial situations, typically involving companies that are unable to meet their financial obligations. This process allows an independent party, known as the receiver, to take control of the company's assets, manage operations, and liquidate property if necessary. The aim is to repay creditors and ensure that the business either recovers or, in some cases, winds down in an orderly manner. But what exactly is receivership, and how does it differ from other insolvency processes like bankruptcy or administration? Let’s explore the details.

What is Receivership? At its core, receivership is a legal mechanism used to protect the interests of creditors when a company faces financial distress. When a business cannot meet its financial obligations, creditors may petition the court to appoint a receiver. The receiver, an impartial third party, is tasked with overseeing the assets and managing the business to repay creditors. Types of Receivership There are two primary types of receivership: Administrative Receivership and Court-appointed Receivership. While both involve the appointment of a receiver to manage or liquidate assets, the authority under which the receiver is appointed and their role differs. 1. Administrative Receivership Administrative receivership is initiated by a secured creditor—usually a lender, such as a bank—that holds a floating charge over the assets of a company. A floating charge is a type of security interest that "floats" over a pool of changing assets (e.g., stock, equipment) and only "crystallizes" into a fixed charge when the borrower defaults. In this scenario, the creditor appoints an administrative receiver, typically a qualified insolvency practitioner, to take control of the company's assets and operations. The administrative receiver's main objective is to recover the debt by managing or selling off the company’s assets. Key Characteristics of Administrative Receivership: - Powerful Role: Administrative receivers are given extensive powers, including the ability to sell or liquidate the company’s assets, run the business, and even dismiss employees. Their primary responsibility is to the secured creditor who appointed them. - Asset Management and Sale: In most cases, administrative receivers sell off assets to recover the debt, although they may choose to continue running the company temporarily to maximize asset value. - Older Financial Agreements: Administrative receivership is common in financial agreements made before the Enterprise Act 2002 in the UK, which limited its use. Newer financial agreements often favor other insolvency processes like administration. Example Scenario: A manufacturing company has defaulted on its loan payments. The bank, holding a floating charge over the company's machinery and inventory, appoints an administrative receiver. The receiver may sell off the machinery or continue operating the factory to repay the loan, depending on which option is more beneficial for the creditor. 2. Court-Appointed Receivership In contrast to administrative receivership, court-appointed receivership is a more neutral process, often used when there is a dispute or concern over how the company is being run. A court can appoint a receiver at the request of creditors, shareholders, or other stakeholders to ensure the business is managed fairly and in the best interest of all parties involved. Key Characteristics of Court-Appointed Receivership: - Neutral Role: The receiver’s role in court-appointed receivership is more neutral and broader. They must act impartially and manage the company’s assets in a way that benefits all stakeholders, not just the secured creditor. - Protection for All Stakeholders: Court-appointed receivership may be used when there are disputes between shareholders, when there are concerns about mismanagement, or when a company’s assets are at risk of being wasted or misused. - Broader Legal Context: This form of receivership can apply not only to companies but also to individuals or trusts. It may be used to preserve assets in legal disputes, marital separations, or estate management. Example Scenario: A family-run business is facing internal conflicts among its shareholders, who allege mismanagement of company funds. The court appoints a receiver to manage the business impartially while the shareholders work to resolve their legal disputes. How Does Receivership Work? The receivership process begins when a company is unable to meet its financial obligations, particularly to secured creditors. While the specific steps may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the type of receivership, the general stages are outlined below. 1. Appointment of a Receiver The process typically begins with the appointment of a receiver. This can happen in one of two ways: - Secured Creditor Appointment: If a secured creditor holds a floating charge over the company’s assets, they have the right to appoint an administrative receiver to recover the debt. - Court Appointment: In a court-appointed receivership, a court appoints a receiver based on an application from stakeholders such as creditors, shareholders, or other interested parties. In either case, the receiver is usually a qualified insolvency professional, tasked with managing the company’s assets to resolve the financial difficulties. 2. Receiver Takes Control of Assets and Operations Once appointed, the receiver immediately assumes control over the company’s assets. Depending on the financial health of the company and the specific instructions of the secured creditor or court, the receiver can either: - Manage the Business: In some cases, the receiver will continue operating the business to generate revenue, preserve jobs, and improve the company’s financial condition. This can be especially important in industries where the company’s value lies in its ongoing operations. - Liquidate Assets: In other situations, the receiver may decide to sell off assets. The goal is to recover as much value as possible to repay creditors. 3. Asset Liquidation or Business Recovery The next phase depends on the specific circumstances: - Business Recovery: If the receiver believes the business can recover from its financial troubles, they may attempt to restructure its operations, cut costs, or improve efficiency. In some cases, the company may emerge from receivership in a stronger financial position. - Asset Liquidation: If recovery is not feasible, the receiver will begin selling off assets. These could include real estate, machinery, inventory, and intellectual property. The goal is to maximize the value of the assets to satisfy creditor claims. 4. Reporting to Creditors and Stakeholders Throughout the process, the receiver is required to provide regular updates to creditors, the court (if court-appointed), and other stakeholders. These reports typically include: - A summary of the company’s financial position. - The steps the receiver has taken to manage or liquidate assets. - Any distributions made to creditors. - The progress of the receivership and expected outcomes. These reports ensure transparency and accountability during the process. 5. Distribution of Funds Once assets have been liquidated, the receiver distributes the funds to creditors according to a predetermined order of priority: - Secured creditors are paid first. In the case of administrative receivership, the secured creditor who appointed the receiver has first claim on the proceeds of asset sales. - Unsecured creditors, such as suppliers or employees, are next in line. However, they often receive little or no repayment, as secured creditors usually absorb the majority of the funds. - Shareholders are last in the order of priority and typically only receive any leftover funds after all creditors have been paid, which is rare in distressed companies. Receivership in Corporate Restructuring Receivership is a key tool in corporate restructuring, particularly for creditors seeking repayment from financially distressed companies. Whether initiated by secured creditors or the courts, the appointment of a receiver allows for structured and professional management of the company’s assets. The ultimate goal may be to repay creditors, recover the business, or liquidate assets to satisfy debts. Understanding the different types of receivership and the process itself can help stakeholders make informed decisions during times of financial crisis. Receivership serves as a critical mechanism to ensure that creditors’ rights are upheld, businesses are managed efficiently, and the interests of all parties are considered in a fair and transparent manner. This detailed examination of the types of receivership and the receivership process highlights the complexities and the strategic role it plays in corporate insolvency. Receivership vs. Bankruptcy: What’s the Difference? Although both receivership and bankruptcy involve businesses in financial distress, there are significant differences between the two processes: - Receivership: Only deals with the assets over which a creditor has security. It doesn't cover the entire company’s liabilities, nor does it involve a complete liquidation of the business. The focus is on recovering debt for the secured creditor. - Bankruptcy: Involves the entire company and its assets, often leading to complete liquidation and distribution of funds to creditors in a legally defined order. It is more drastic and typically marks the end of the business. Pros and Cons of Receivership Pros: - Protection for Secured Creditors: Receivership ensures that secured creditors recover as much as possible from the company's assets. - Potential for Business Continuation: In some cases, the business may continue under the receiver's management, allowing for recovery rather than liquidation. - Structured Liquidation: If liquidation is necessary, receivership provides a more orderly process than forced liquidation by creditors. Cons: - Limited Focus: The receiver's priority is to repay secured creditors, meaning that unsecured creditors may receive little or nothing. - Damage to Reputation: Receivership can harm a company's reputation, making future financing and customer trust difficult to rebuild. - Limited Scope for Debtor Relief: The company’s management loses control over the business, and the primary focus shifts to satisfying creditor claims rather than restructuring the company for long-term survival. When is Receivership Used? Receivership is often seen as a last resort when a company is facing severe financial difficulties. It is typically initiated when: - Secured creditors are unable to recover their loans through normal means. - Business operations are failing, and the company is on the brink of insolvency. - Shareholders or stakeholders request court intervention due to mismanagement or inability to resolve financial issues internally. Conclusion: Is Receivership the Right Solution? Receivership can offer a lifeline for creditors seeking repayment, but it often signals a critical point in a company’s financial health. For businesses, receivership is a legal remedy that can either provide an opportunity for recovery or mark the end of operations. In any case, receivership serves as an essential tool in the broader framework of corporate insolvency, ensuring that creditors’ rights are respected while providing a structured path forward for distressed businesses. Understanding the nuances of receivership is crucial for businesses, lenders, and stakeholders alike. Whether you’re a company facing financial distress or a creditor seeking repayment, recognizing the role of receivership in the financial landscape is vital for making informed decisions. Read the full article

#BusinessLaw #receivership

0 notes

lexlawuk · 4 months ago

Text

Featherstone Rovers RLFC face Investec Winding-Up Petition

Featherstone Rovers, a historic rugby league club nestled in the heart of West Yorkshire, finds itself in a difficult financial position. The recent winding-up petition filed by Investec Asset Finance Plc on 30th May 2024 (Case Number CR-2024-003208) threatens the club’s future. This legal action, if successful, could force Featherstone Rovers into compulsory liquidation, effectively shutting…

View On WordPress

0 notes

citynewsglobe · 1 month ago

Text

[ad_1] The Function of Insolvency Practitioners in Enterprise Restoration - Bm Occasions Our web site makes use of cookies to enhance your expertise. Study extra about: Cookie Coverage [ad_2] Supply hyperlink

0 notes

companyknowledgenews · 2 months ago

Text

Business loans gone bad put family homes on the line - Information Today Web https://www.merchant-business.com/business-loans-gone-bad-put-family-homes-on-the-line/?feed_id=201918&_unique_id=66e8a93dcd1be #GLOBAL - BLOGGER BLOGGER Photo: RNZBusiness owners who put up their own assets as security for lending are being put into personal receivership in increasing numbers.Keaton Pronk, an insolvency practitioner with McDonald Vague, said there had been a “large jump” in personal receivership appointments, which started in June last year and has sped up considerably this year.There were 30 last year, two-thirds of which were after June. In August there had already been 31.He said most had been driven by a small number of business lenders promoting themselves on “quick and easy access to funds often at higher interest rates, with even higher penalty rates, than those available through traditional lending means”.As with a company, when an individual enters receivership, a creditor-appointed or court-appointed receiver takes over the person’s assets and tries to repay debts by managing the assets or selling them.Information published in the New Zealand Gazette shows receiverships being instigated by organisations such as Revive Finance, Fundtap, Prime Finance, and Ignite Solutions.“A lot of it comes through from second- and third-tier lenders, you see a lot of the online lending that you can do – a couple of clicks and you get the loan straight into your bank account kind of thing,” Pronk said.“As part of that paperwork, people are providing security in their own name not just their business name, It’s the very easy ‘click click click and the money’s there’ but they don’t fully understand the repercussions of perhaps what they’re doing and they’re not getting advice on reading the fine print.”He said people could end up paying high interest rates quickly, especially if they were charged penalties. “It can be 20 percent-plus.”He said the numbers were likely to continue to increase while the economy was soft. “It’s tough out there for businesses.”Damien Grant, of Waterstone Insolvency, agreed more lenders were taking personal general security agreements (GSAs) from borrowers.“That’s been a change in the market for the last two years. We’ve probably done more personal receiverships in the last three years than the decade leading up to it. It’s a change business practice.”He said it often took too long to enforce a personal guarantee agreement through the courts, so a personal GSA was a way to give lenders access to assets like property or shares if a company defaulted on a loan.It could take up to a year to resolve a personal receivership if it involved a family home he said.Grant said for every personal receivership recorded, there would be four or five that did not go that far because the person was able to restructure their lending or take out a second mortgage.Financial Services Federation executive director Lyn McMorran, which represents many lenders, said the number of insolvencies for businesses was increasing and it was likely that some of them had the family home linked as security.“Our members tend not to take personal security to the extent that the banks do. They are more likely to take security over the asset being purchased or they offer asset leasing alternatives so I’m not hearing anything about having to realise on personal security for business lending from our members.”Independent economist Shamubeel Eaqub said it was a symptom of the downturn, which had hit businesses harder than individuals this time. “Businesses are going under.”He said it made sense for lenders to want to hold some security against their loans. “Especially smaller businesses, it’s very hard to prove you’ve got the finances and track record to be able to borrow on the basis of that. Many businesses don’t have physical inventory that you can take security over. So what do you do? Either you borrow against your house and put the money into the business or you give a personal guarantee.”

http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/business-loan-faqs.jpg Photo: RNZ Business owners who put up their own assets as security for lending are being put into personal receivership in increasing numbers. Keaton Pronk, an insolvency practitioner with McDonald Vague, said there had been a “large jump” in personal receivership appointments, which started in June last year and has sped up considerably this year. … Read More

0 notes

nicolejames12 · 10 months ago

Text

Personal Insolvency Practitioners

At PIP Ltd, we understand that financial challenges can be overwhelming. Our team of experienced Personal Insolvency Practitioners is dedicated to providing comprehensive solutions to individuals facing insolvency issues. We pride ourselves on being your partners in financial recovery, offering personalized guidance every step of the way. Visit: www.pipltd.ie/personal-insolvency-arrangement/

#Personal Insolvency Practitioners

0 notes

bravecompanynews · 2 months ago

Text

Business loans gone bad put family homes on the line - Information Today Web - #GLOBAL https://www.merchant-business.com/business-loans-gone-bad-put-family-homes-on-the-line/?feed_id=201917&_unique_id=66e8a93ce2e9b Photo: RNZBusiness owners who put up their own assets as security for lending are being put into personal receivership in increasing numbers.Keaton Pronk, an insolvency practitioner with McDonald Vague, said there had been a “large jump” in personal receivership appointments, which started in June last year and has sped up considerably this year.There were 30 last year, two-thirds of which were after June. In August there had already been 31.He said most had been driven by a small number of business lenders promoting themselves on “quick and easy access to funds often at higher interest rates, with even higher penalty rates, than those available through traditional lending means”.As with a company, when an individual enters receivership, a creditor-appointed or court-appointed receiver takes over the person’s assets and tries to repay debts by managing the assets or selling them.Information published in the New Zealand Gazette shows receiverships being instigated by organisations such as Revive Finance, Fundtap, Prime Finance, and Ignite Solutions.“A lot of it comes through from second- and third-tier lenders, you see a lot of the online lending that you can do – a couple of clicks and you get the loan straight into your bank account kind of thing,” Pronk said.“As part of that paperwork, people are providing security in their own name not just their business name, It’s the very easy ‘click click click and the money’s there’ but they don’t fully understand the repercussions of perhaps what they’re doing and they’re not getting advice on reading the fine print.”He said people could end up paying high interest rates quickly, especially if they were charged penalties. “It can be 20 percent-plus.”He said the numbers were likely to continue to increase while the economy was soft. “It’s tough out there for businesses.”Damien Grant, of Waterstone Insolvency, agreed more lenders were taking personal general security agreements (GSAs) from borrowers.“That’s been a change in the market for the last two years. We’ve probably done more personal receiverships in the last three years than the decade leading up to it. It’s a change business practice.”He said it often took too long to enforce a personal guarantee agreement through the courts, so a personal GSA was a way to give lenders access to assets like property or shares if a company defaulted on a loan.It could take up to a year to resolve a personal receivership if it involved a family home he said.Grant said for every personal receivership recorded, there would be four or five that did not go that far because the person was able to restructure their lending or take out a second mortgage.Financial Services Federation executive director Lyn McMorran, which represents many lenders, said the number of insolvencies for businesses was increasing and it was likely that some of them had the family home linked as security.“Our members tend not to take personal security to the extent that the banks do. They are more likely to take security over the asset being purchased or they offer asset leasing alternatives so I’m not hearing anything about having to realise on personal security for business lending from our members.”Independent economist Shamubeel Eaqub said it was a symptom of the downturn, which had hit businesses harder than individuals this time. “Businesses are going under.”He said it made sense for lenders to want to hold some security against their loans. “Especially smaller businesses, it’s very hard to prove you’ve got the finances and track record to be able to borrow on the basis of that. Many businesses don’t have physical inventory that you can take security over. So what do you do? Either you borrow against your house and put the money into the business or you give a personal guarantee.”

http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/business-loan-faqs.jpg BLOGGER - #GLOBAL

0 notes