As we are moving towards the second anniversary of the pandemic it is worth pausing to reflect that, after some initial reluctance, technology has been quite successfully embraced both by lawyers and also by the courts to keep the system running.
Obviously meetings between lawyers and clients have largely been replaced by virtual contact through Microsoft Teams and Zoom, but virtual contact has now taken a firm foothold in relation to the litigation process.
The Court of Appeal has recently handed down judgment in Wood v Commercial First Business Ltdand Others and Business Mortgage Finance 4 plc v Pengelly [2021] EWCA Civ 471, on the issue of broker “secret commissions”.
These decisions have caused something of a storm in the asset finance industry but the implications are not limited to asset finance, and somewhat surprisingly in our view the NACFB is recommending “both regulated and unregulated firms, working in all sectors, should be transparent about their commissions and fully disclose the amount of commission received”.
In our view it may be a little premature to raise the white flag on the question of disclosing the amount of commission to invoice finance clients unless they ask for that information. In both Wood and Pengelly, the broker’s terms and conditions notified the mortgagors that the broker “may” receive fees from creditors with whom it placed mortgages. If the terms had stopped here, then these would have been “half secret” cases (with the wording resembling that in Hurstanger Limited v Wilson [2007] 1 WLR 2351). However, the terms went on to promise that in the event commission was paid, the mortgagors would receive notification of the amount. Given the finding of fact that no such notification was received, the court correctly categorised these as fully secret cases.
As long ago as 2001 in the landmark case of Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Etridge [2001] UKHL 44 the House of Lords significantly extended the circumstances in which a financier will be put on constructive notice of misrepresentation or undue influence committed against an individual executing a Guarantee or other security, but there remains a great deal of misunderstanding of the relevant principles.
The mischief addressed 20 years ago by the House of Lords arose from wives regularly being misled or unduly pressured by husbands into signing Guarantees or executing Charges in favour of creditors, but the protection afforded by the law extends much further.
In April 2021, Bermans topped the professional poll for choice of legal services for both £100k+ and sub £100k funds out in Business Money’s report of the UK invoice finance sector.
The professionals poll rankings are voted for by asset based lending providers who are asked about their choice of professional when acquiring a lawyer amongst other professional sectors.
We came across an interesting argument concerning the right to sue after securitisation of assets in a recent reported case we ran for an asset finance company, Haydock Finance Limited v Starcruiser Bussing Limited [2021] EWHC 622 (Comm).
The case involved commercial vehicles and acting for the funder we brought a claim against the hirer for return of the vehicles and the guarantor for a substantial sum. There appeared to be no merit whatsoever in the Defence as served, but by the time of the hearing the Defendants turned up with a so-called “Securitisation Analysis Report” prepared by an academic in California who describes himself as an “Expert Analysis on Auto Agreement Backed Securities Data.”
On 1 December 2020 Crown preference in relation to unpaid taxes reappeared on the insolvency landscape for the first time since the abolition of the doctrine in the Enterprise Act 2002.
Debts owed to HMRC are now to rank as secondary preferential debts, ranking after employees’ preferential claims but, importantly, before claims of floating charge holders.
In our spring 2020 Briefing just as the global pandemic was taking hold we analysed some high-level issues likely to affect contractual relationships on the one hand between invoice financiers and their clients, and on the other hand between invoice financiers and debtors.
One of the effects of the pandemic has been to slow down (some might say even further!) the litigation process in the UK courts, and despite one or two high-profile decisions relating primarily to business interruption insurance there have been few reported cases dealing with the effects of the pandemic relevant to invoice financiers.
In our last Briefing we explained certain temporary changes to the insolvency regime arising from the pandemic and set out the relevant dates of those provisions.
On 26 March 2021, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/375) extended various temporary provisions in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA 2020”) that had otherwise been due to expire in March and April 2021.
There are somewhat conflicting reports as to the current level of deliberate fraud in the invoice finance industry, but it is worth keeping a watch on some of the cases relating to director qualifications.
In this regard it is noteworthy that three directors were recently banned for a total of 29 years for an invoice finance fraud.
| 
