Renowned stock-picker Mark Rogers and his analyst team at The Motley Fool UK have named 6 shares that they believe UK investors should consider buying NOW.So if you’re looking for more stock ideas to try and best position your portfolio today, then it might be a good day for you. Because we’re offering a full 33% off your first year of membership to our flagship share-tipping service, backed by our ‘no quibbles’ 30-day subscription fee refund guarantee. See all posts by Royston Wild “This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this. I’m sure you’ll agree that’s quite the statement from Motley Fool Co-Founder Tom Gardner.But since our US analyst team first recommended shares in this unique tech stock back in 2016, the value has soared.What’s more, we firmly believe there’s still plenty of upside in its future. In fact, even throughout the current coronavirus crisis, its performance has been beating Wall St expectations.And right now, we’re giving you a chance to discover exactly what has got our analysts all fired up about this niche industry phenomenon, in our FREE special report, A Top US Share From The Motley Fool. Image source: Getty Images. Royston Wild has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Prudential. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Royston Wild | Monday, 30th December, 2019 | More on: PRU Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares £3k to spend? A FTSE 100 dividend growth stock I’d buy and hold until 2030 Click here to claim your copy now — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top US Share… free of charge! I would like to receive emails from you about product information and offers from The Fool and its business partners. Each of these emails will provide a link to unsubscribe from future emails. More information about how The Fool collects, stores, and handles personal data is available in its Privacy Statement. Enter Your Email Address Getting exposure to the hot growth regions of Asia is a critical requirement for any growth investor worth his or her salt. Booming population growth and rising wealth levels provide plenty of profits opportunities for many UK stocks, one of which is FTSE 100-listed Prudential (LSE: PRU).A report released by Alphabet‘s Google, Temasek and Bain & Company underlines just how big the business opportunities are for Prudential in its core marketplaces. The study revealed that, of the near-400m citizens in South-East Asia, just over a quarter of these (104m) are what it describes as ‘fully banked’ and enjoy full access to financial services.5G is here – and shares of this ‘sleeping giant’ could be a great way for you to potentially profit!According to one leading industry firm, the 5G boom could create a global industry worth US$12.3 TRILLION out of thin air…And if you click here we’ll show you something that could be key to unlocking 5G’s full potential…By comparison, some 98m people are what it calls ‘underbanked’, in other words those individuals who have a bank account but have insufficient access to credit, investment and insurance products. But both of these figures pale next to the 198m citizens who are ‘unbanked’ and hold no financial products at all.Big plansIt’s no shock, then, that Prudential believes these far-flung regions remain the key to its growth story. In an interview with the Financial Times today Nic Nicandrou, chief executive of the firm’s Asia business, said that the company “will be Asia led” following the demerger of its UK operations as M&G earlier this year.Elaborating on its plans, Nicandrou said that the continent will be “the preferred destination of capital for the group, whether it’s to branch out into new segments, develop new products and services, build out new relationships [or] develop new rules to market.”Prudential’s appetite for exploiting this rich market was underlined through fresh acquisition activity last week, its Eastspring asset management division snapping up a 50.1% stake in Thanachart Fund Management for $137m. The move makes Eastspring the fourth-largest asset manager in Thailand with combined assets under management of $21.6bn.Top valueAccording to the Brookings Institution, almost 90% of the next billion entrants into the global middle class will come from Asia. And this gives Prudential a lot to look forward to as these individuals seek ways to protect their wealth and their health too (Brookings expects total annual expenditure by Asia’s middle class to hit $37trn by 2030).Annual earnings at ‘The Pru’ have long danced northwards on account of its booming Asian divisions, and by the looks of things, the bottom line should keep swelling through the next decade at least. And this naturally bodes well for dividends — Prudential raised the full-year payouts 5% in 2018, and thanks to its bright growth outlook and exceptional cash generation said that it plans to continue raising them at this rate.At current prices, Prudential trades on a rock-bottom forward P/E ratio of 10.2 times and sports a handy 2.5% dividend yield too. It’s a blue-chip I’d happily buy for my ISA and hold for many, many years.
Advertisement 17 total views, 1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis £520,000 given online by CharityCard Charities Aid Foundation reports that £520,000 has been donated online by CharityCard holders since CAF launched its dedicated Web site in 1998. In March this year, over £120,000 was donated online via CharityCard. Online donations now represent between 3 and 4% of all CharityCard donations. The average size of online CharityCard donations is £500.Visit Charitycard. AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis Howard Lake | 9 May 2000 | News About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving.
Talk given at WWP conference by Eva Panjwani.In preparing my remarks today on the revolutionary potential of my generation, especially Black and Brown young people, I want to first ask you all, brothers and sisters, 50 years after the March on Washington, are we free?Living in the age of empire, language loses meaning. When “democracy” means neoliberal capitalism, “reform” means repression, and the phrase “humanitarian intervention” is merely a part of the public relations campaign for the next imperialist war and occupation, what is freedom, after all?I vividly remember, in the aftermath of 9/11, the mainstream capitalist media wound up xenophobic sentiment by repeatedly posing the question, “Why do they hate us?” and allowing the reactionary forces to answer, “They hate us because of our freedoms.”How tragic it felt then, that when fear-mongering was baiting Muslims, Arabs and Third World immigrants, white America was asking the very same question that Black and Brown kindergarteners ask their parents every year about white America — “Why do they hate us?”When people of color are pushed out of their neighborhoods and into specific areas of their cities, unconstitutionally stopped and frisked at alarming rates by the NYPD, our plight does not greatly differ from the people of Gaza stopped daily at checkpoints under the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Youth of color are either locked up in the system of mass incarceration that jails us, or locked out of higher education and good jobs, forming a new racial undercaste within the United States. We are a generation under siege.To my understanding, to be free is to live a life without fear. But a life without fear is a promise we could not yet assure youth of color. For young people — Jonathan Farrell in my home state of North Carolina and Renisha McBride in Detroit, Mich. — the stories are eerily similar. Two Black youth in two different car accidents approached nearby homes for help, for assistance in their moments of vulnerability, and had their lives cut tragically short when their blackness held them seemingly complicit in the white supremacist mentality that they were guilty, dangerous, a threat until proven otherwise.Jonathan was killed by police officers in a misguided attempt to guard private property, while Renisha was shot in a manner similar to the murder of Trayvon Martin, by a white man who saw her as a threat. For it wasn’t just pain and anger at the acquittal of George Zimmerman that sent my generation to the streets, our pain and anger was coupled by a refusal to accept that somehow 17-year-old, unarmed Trayvon was found fatally guilty by a society that criminalized his very existence.The desire to live a life without fear is the very hope that capitalism extinguishes for undocumented youth. Countless young people have suffered the extreme mental and emotional consequences of a life lived in the shadows. Policies like Secure Communities terrorize our neighborhoods while we are told that border militarization is the price we must pay when seeking immigration reform. So again, I ask you, brothers and sisters, are we free?Connecting our future to the pastYoung revolutionaries before me, like Huey Newton of the Black Panther Party, asked these very same questions in previous generations. Huey taught us that modern capitalism takes away our sense of community, of togetherness, of shared purpose. It promotes individualism and fear. And when Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his “I Have a Dream” speech 50 years ago, he too reminded the crowd that it had been 100 years since the Emancipation Proclamation had been signed, but the “colored” man was not yet free.Us rebels and activists are quick to remind folks of the other profound words of Dr. King, on capitalism, on poverty, on war. But when Dr. King spoke his now iconic words — “I have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream” — it sparked something in the imagination of generations to come.Young people across the nation continue to rally around the promise of a dream. From the DREAM Act and United We Dream, to the undocumented youth known as the Dreamers, to the Dream Defenders occupying the Florida state Capitol for Trayvon’s Law, we are the products of a generation that had a dream. We are the products of a dream deferred. We are the sons and daughters of farm workers and slaves, dedicated to repainting the canvas of history with the paintbrushes given to us by Malcolm, by Huey, by Gloria, by Assata, by Cesar, by Sam Marcy and Dottie Ballan.FIST Youth are a growing coalition of youth and students committed to replacing jails with schools, ending the war on the undocumented, dismantling the systems that criminalize us, and fighting for self-determination for our communities.We hear your whispered questions, “Where are the youth?” We know our revolution cannot be retweeted and assure you all, even when you may have begun to lose hope, there is a new generation of organizers, marchers, fighters, activists, lovers and dreamers arriving and we are ready. We are a generation forgotten by trade unions, yet from Bangladesh to Baltimore we’ve taken to the streets to demand a living wage. You may doubt our discipline but just watch as we join hands to take up the torch — we are ready. Wearing butterfly wings and graduation robes we will march against injustice and win the fight for freedom in our lifetime.FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thisFacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare this
News News May 13, 2021 Find out more RSF begins research into mechanisms for protecting journalists in Latin America News Annoyed by a difficult question from a reporter last week, Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández demanded that he reveal his sources to the interior ministry and used a threatening tone that is typical of the oppressive climate for news media and civil society news providers.Ramón Maldonado, a reporter for Radio Matutino Ceibeño and HCH television, posed the awkward question when the president was inaugurating a public WiFi connection in the northern city of La Ceiba’s central park on 10 July.Referring to public funding for mining projects in the region, Maldonado asked him about an alleged government plan to move the borders of the Nombre de Dios nature reserve to allow mining for marble without taking account of the fact that the reserve is the main water source for much of the region’s population.“Would the president be ready to support this type of apparently illegal action,” he asked.Reacting with irritation, President Hernández asked him where he got his information and ordered his bodyguards to find out his name and take his photo. Maldonado volunteered his name but after the event was over, no security agents came to take his photo.“Such threatening behaviour is unworthy of the president of a democratic country,” said Camille Soulier, the head of the Reporters Without Borders Americas desk. “We condemn President Hernández’s comments and the attempt to violate Maldonado’s sources.”This intimidation attempt comes at time of tension for journalists in Honduras, which is ranked 129th out of 180 countries in the 2014 Reporters Without Borders press freedom index.Dina Meza, RWB’s Honduras correspondent, continues to get constant death threats without receiving any protection from the authorities. She submitted a second written request (attached) or protection to the interior ministry on 15 July, again without obtaining any response.Meza, who is in contact with Maldonado, has posted an alert on Facebook about the threat to him. The independent website Vos el Soberano has also helped to circulate information about the threat. Organisation December 28, 2020 Find out more HondurasAmericas Follow the news on Honduras to go further Related documents Carta de Dina Meza al ministerio PúblicoPDF – 934.44 KB HondurasAmericas July 17, 2014 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Honduran president threatens reporter at public event 2011-2020: A study of journalist murders in Latin America confirms the importance of strengthening protection policies Help by sharing this information Receive email alerts RSF_en April 27, 2021 Find out more RSF’s 2020 Round-up: 50 journalists killed, two-thirds in countries “at peace” Reports
Email Advertisement WhatsApp Twitter Facebook YOUTH workers on Limerick’s southside were first in Ireland engage in a new crime prevention initiative which aims to educate young people about the dangers of gangs and weapon crime.Youth workers from Southill Area Centre, Roxboro Garda Youth Diversion, Southill School Completion Programme and Limerick Youth Service, were trained in the programme. Jennifer O’Brien, Southill Area Centre, brought the UK-based Streetwise programme to Limerick.Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up It was developed in Leeds to combat gang crime.Jennifer said that although gang culture in the UK was different to here, much was applicable and will be rolled out in the Southill area.She said: “We invited all youth workers in Southill and the surrounding areas to participate. We wanted to challenge young people’s perception of what a gang is”.The programme uses an alternative approach to educating 10 to 21-year-olds about drugs, weapons and gangs by using powerful messages from former gang members.She added: “It highlights the negative impact of getting involved in gang crime and promotes positive alternatives”.Education packages provided include, ‘Bite the Bullet’, a weapons awareness programme, ‘Dealers’, a drugs education programme and ‘Doin Time,’ which deals with the consequences of going to prison.She stressed It was important that youth workers are educated about drugs and weapons, as it helps them to recognise the culture.Streetwise gets youth workers to explore the reasons why people join gangs.Jennifer explained: “Teenagers can often be oblivious to being a part of a gang as it is seen as normal for them, and they are just hanging around with their friends”.Those trained will now use art, music and role-playing to promote positive alternatives to gangs and crime.The programme also made the community workers aware of the different recruitment methods used.It uses a youth friendly design and connects to teenagers using modern language and references to hip hop.Some of the weapons used are highlighted, including swords, knuckle dusters and pool balls in socks. Previous articleLimerick’s Niall Colgan appointed to national hairdressing ‘Style Council’Next articleShop, cook and eat smart admin Linkedin Print NewsLocal NewsCrime prevention initiative for southside youth workersBy admin – April 9, 2010 518
Home / Featured / LoanScorecard Hires New Managing Director of Capital Markets Related Articles Sign up for DS News Daily About Author: Rachel Williams Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago LoanScorecard announced that Gerald Casey has joined the company as Managing Director, Capital Markets.In this position, Casey will be responsible for identifying and pursuing LoanScorecard opportunities with originators, aggregators, and issuers of non-agency assets, as well as developing and executing strategies to maximize revenues of non-agency capital market participants and investors. He will report to Ben Wu, Executive Director of LoanScorecard.Casey brings more than 30 years of experience in the financial services industry as a fixed income, residential whole loan trading and technology professional to LoanScorecard with over $60 billion UPB of non-agency whole loans acquired and managed to-date. Most recently, he held the position of Managing Director with Hudson Advisors/Lone Star Funds. In this position, he was responsible for residential non-performing whole loan acquisitions and he acquired, underwrote and directed the default servicing at Caliber Home Loans, a wholly-owned operating company of Lone Star Funds, on over $29 billion UPB for Lone Star Funds’ investors.Prior to Hudson Advisors/Lone Star Funds, Casey was a Portfolio Manager at Westport Capital Partners, an investment management company focused exclusively on opportunistic and distressed real estate investments. His career has also included senior trading, asset management and technology positions as a Principal at The Winter Group, a vertically integrated real estate investment management company, and as Director of Fixed Income Trading and Chief Technology Officer at Beacon Hill Asset Management, a hedge fund specializing in investing and trading mortgage-backed securities. Casey began his career in financial services providing technology solutions to Lipper Analytical Services, now Thomson Reuters Lipper, and Barron Funds.“LoanScorecard is committed to supporting capital and secondary market players as they expand their non-agency and portfolio offerings,” said Wu. “Adding a leader with Gerald’s experience will allow us to better serve our clients by providing strategic solutions that make their businesses more efficient and effective.” Print This Post Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago in Featured, News, Technology Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago HOUSING LoanScoreCard mortgage 2017-10-23 rachelwilliams October 23, 2017 1,079 Views The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago The Week Ahead: Nearing the Forbearance Exit 2 days ago Subscribe Is Rise in Forbearance Volume Cause for Concern? 2 days ago Previous: First American Introduces New Valuation for Appraisal Process Next: Metro-West Appoints VP of Appraiser Advancement Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Tagged with: HOUSING LoanScoreCard mortgage The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Share Save LoanScorecard Hires New Managing Director of Capital Markets Rachel Williams attended Texas Christian University (TCU), where she graduated with Magna Cum Laude with a dual Bachelor of Arts in English and History. Williams is a member of Phi Beta Kappa, widely recognized as the nation’s most prestigious honor society. Subsequent to graduating from TCU, Williams joined the Five Star Institute as an editorial intern, advancing to staff writer, associate editor and is currently the editor in chief and head of corporate communications. She has over a decade of editorial experience with a primary focus on the U.S. residential mortgage industry and financial markets. Williams resides in Dallas, Texas with her husband. She can be reached at [email protected]
Google+ SIPTU says there are increasing fears that 100 jobs could be lost at Letterkenny General Hospital as the HSE takes action to slash costs in the Western area.The country’s largest union is to ballot for strike action over a HSE plan to cut hundreds of temporary contract jobs this after the HSE’s outgoing CEO Brendan Drumm yesterday announced that most cutbacks in the Health Service will come from hospitals.Martin O’Rourke is SIPTU’s representative in Donegal – He says while not confirmed there is real concern that job losses at Letterkeny General will be confirmed:[podcast]http://www.highlandradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/26siptu1pm.mp3[/podcast] By News Highland – July 26, 2010 Facebook Newsx Adverts Pinterest WhatsApp Concerns grow for 100 jobs at Letterkenny General Twitter Google+ Guidelines for reopening of hospitality sector published Pinterest Twitter WhatsApp Calls for maternity restrictions to be lifted at LUH RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Facebook LUH system challenged by however, work to reduce risk to patients ongoing – Dr Hamilton Previous articleFuneral takes place of baby Lisa GallagherNext articleCouncillor calls for debate on emergency services call out charge News Highland Almost 10,000 appointments cancelled in Saolta Hospital Group this week Business Matters Ep 45 – Boyd Robinson, Annette Houston & Michael Margey Need for issues with Mica redress scheme to be addressed raised in Seanad also
ColumnsDecoding Preferential Transactions Under The Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code Sanjeev Kumar & Anshul Sehgal20 May 2020 8:00 PMShare This – x Black’s Law Dictionary defines “preferential transfer” as “a prebankruptcy transfer made by an insolvent debtor to or for the benefit of a creditor, thereby allowing the creditor to receive more than its appropriate share of the debtor’s assets”. Insolvency and bankruptcy laws across the globe, including the recently introduced Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”)…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?Login Black’s Law Dictionary defines “preferential transfer” as “a prebankruptcy transfer made by an insolvent debtor to or for the benefit of a creditor, thereby allowing the creditor to receive more than its appropriate share of the debtor’s assets”. Insolvency and bankruptcy laws across the globe, including the recently introduced Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) in India, deals with preferential transactions. Such transactions are also known as ‘voidable preference’, ‘liquidation preference’, ‘voidable transfers’ or ‘preferential assignments’. It has been seen that, being privy to insider information, debtors tend to apprehend inevitable bankruptcy and enter into preferential transactions just prior to slipping into the red, in order to park valuable assets beyond the hands of creditors who would otherwise have a share in the liquidation of such assets, with either connected or unconnected entities. One of the crucial factors which has been observed and is a commonality in the laws across the world is the ‘time frame’ which has been earmarked for detecting such transactions. The technical term for this being the ‘look back period’. Though, the time period varies across countries, but the intent of the law has been very clear that the look back period is always a few couple of years just before the date that debtors are pushed into the clutches of insolvency. IBC in India also operates on the globally accepted principles for identification and treatment of preferential transactions, which is enshrined under Sections 43 and 44 of IBC. While Section 43 of IBC lays down the essentials of establishing a preferential transaction under IBC whereas Section 44 of IBC lays down the extant of the orders which can be passed by the concerned adjudicating authority under IBC while dealing with preferential transactions. Upon a bare reading of the concerned provisions, the intent of the Legislature has been to give the power of reporting such transactions to the Liquidator or the Resolution Professional of the corporate debtor. Thus, Section 43 of IBC appears to be extremely restrictive as it does not explicitly provide any other aggrieved person to report a preferential transaction. In a given situation, it might be the case where the Liquidator / Resolution Professional may derelict in their duties to report such preferential transactions, then in such a scenario, there should be the option for a creditor / aggrieved party to also approach the concerned adjudicating authority to report such preferential transactions. This issue had come up before the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench whereby it was held that a creditor first ought to place relevant material alleging preferential transactions before the Resolution Professional and if the duty bound Resolution Professional fails to invoke the jurisdiction of the concerned adjudicating authority under Section 43 of IBC then the creditor would be entitled to approach the adjudicating authority. This appears to be the correct approach which is based on the principle of ‘Ubi jus ibi remedium’ i.e. there is a wrong, there is a remedy. Thus, if any wrong has been committed then the law provides a remedy for that and any person will not suffer a wrong without a remedy as no wrong should be allowed to go without any compensation if it can be redressed by a court of law. Nonetheless, it is high time that the Legislature made the required amendment to this Section of IBC. Coming to understanding the nuances involved in Section 43 of IBC; there are two set of conditions which have to made out for declaring a specific transaction as “preferential”. Firstly, there ought to be a transfer for property and interest by the corporate debtor. This transfer should be specifically of such a nature that resulted in benefit of a creditor or surety or guarantor which is for an antecedent debt (financial or operational) or any other liability. Secondly, once the transfer has been carried out, it should be shown that in the event the corporate debtor was to be rendered into liquidation then the transfer made, has placed such a party in a beneficial position than it would have been in the liquidation process. While Section 43(2) of IBC lays down the ingredients of proving a preferential transaction, the same can only be considered by the concerned adjudicating authority if it falls within the ‘look back period’ as provided under Section 43(4) of IBC. This provides for another distinction i.e. whether the concerned party involved for the transaction is a related party or not. If it is found to be a related party to the debtor, then the look back period is two years prior to the date of commencement of insolvency and if the concerned party is not a related party then the look back period being one year from the date of commencement of insolvency. The IBC vide Section 5(24) of IBC provides for an exhaustive definition of who falls within the meaning of being a ‘related party’ for the purposes of the IBC. Thus, it is only when a transaction meets the tests laid down in the positive clauses i.e. Section 43(2) read with Section 43(4) of IBC, an action can lie against such preferential transactions. But, this not where the entire process ends, IBC provides for an escape route mechanism vide the negative clause i.e. Section 43(3) of IBC. Under the said provision, any such transaction which is alleged to be preferential, if shown to have been made in “ordinary course of business” or “routine affairs” or if due to any such transfer a security interest has been created in favor of the debtor which gives a new value to the concerned property and which is duly registered within a period of thirty days from the receipt, then such no action shall lie against such transaction, even if the deeming fictions under Sections 43(2) and 43(4) of IBC are satisfied. Once, the alleged preferential transaction meets the deeming fiction requirements of Section 43 of IBC and pass the muster test of the exclusion clause, then Section 44 of IBC lays down the nature of orders which can be passed by the concerned adjudicating authority which are vast and extensive in nature. The adjudicating authority literally have been have been equipped with the power to unscramble the scrambled egg! Considering the mischief and interplay of the deeming fiction and exclusion clause, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India recently in a decision (“Jaypee case”) laid down the tests which need to answer for proving an alleged transaction to be a ‘preferential transaction’ within the ambit of the IBC which are: “(i) As to whether such transfer is for the benefit of a creditor or a surety or a guarantor? (ii) As to whether such transfer is for or on account of an antecedent financial debt or operational debt or other liabilities owed by the corporate debtor? (iii) As to whether such transfer has the effect of putting such creditor or surety or guarantor in a beneficial position than it would have been in the event of distribution of assets being made in accordance with Section 53? (iv) If such transfer had been for the benefit of a related party (other than an employee), as to whether the same was made during the period of two years preceding the insolvency commencement date; and if such transfer had been for the benefit of an unrelated party, as to whether the same was made during the period of one year preceding the insolvency commencement date? (v) As to whether such transfer is not an excluded transaction in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 43?” While examining certain transactions undertaken by the giant home developer infrastructure company, a very poignant question of law was posed by the debtor company, before the Apex Court in the Jaypee case. That, whether the look back period under Section 43(4) of IBC by its very nature can come into operation, at least one year after the enactment of the Code and or else, it would be giving retrospective effect to these provisions which is not permissible under law? This line of argument was struck down by the Apex Court by relying on the underlying schemata of the IBC. It was observed that the intent of the Legislature behind Section 43 of IBC has been to reverse the unwarranted better position that the beneficiary of a preference acquires. It was held that the power to strike down preferential transactions was to ensure that any property which in likelihood would have been lost due to such a transaction is brought back into the pool of assets of the corporate debtor which may prove to revive the debtor or in the situation of liquidation, ensure pro rata, equitable and just distribution of its assets amongst all creditors as per the waterfall mechanism. While analyzing the proposition placed before itself, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that if the applicability of Section 43 qua the look back period was to be as per the date of commencement of IBC, then the results would be nothing short of a catastrophe. It was stated that if this line of approach was to be accepted, the end result would be of postponing the effective date of operation of Section 43 of IBC by two years in the case of related party and to one year in the case of unrelated party, and thereby, effectively postponing the application of entire Section 43 for a period of two years! Now, whether certain parts of Section 43 of IBC can be a self-goal? In order to analyze this, it is necessary to delve into what constitutes as “ordinary” course of business transactions? If a transaction is found to have been made in the ordinary course of business, then irrespective of any of the ingredients of Section 43 of IBC having been made out, such transactions would never be put under the scanner. But could it be said that this was the intent of the Legislature by using such words in the statute? If this line of approach is to hold good, then it would amount to sanctifying almost every transaction that a corporate debtor would undertake as the interpretation of ordinary course of business could be a tool which in turn frustrates every transaction which comes under the scanner. However, this issue also stands settled with the decision of the Apex Court in the Jaypee case whereby applying the principle of purposive interpretation, it was held that, “only by way of such reading of “or” as “and”, it could be ensured that the principal focus of the enquiry on dealings and affairs of the corporate debtor is not distracted and remains on its trajectory, so as to reach to the final answer of the core question as to whether corporate debtor has done anything which falls foul of its corporate responsibilities.” Thus, just by claiming a transaction to have been made in the “ordinary” course would not release the scanner over such transactions and will have to go through the rigors of testing as provided under Section 43 of IBC. The entire rigors for preferential transactions under IBC, seem to be too cumbersome? To conclude, in what appears to be a ready reckoner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the Jaypee case, has laid down a step wise approach that the Resolution Professional or the Liquidator is required to undertake for reporting a preferential transaction action under the IBC. Though, this may be beneficial for resolution professionals under the IBC, however, it is our considered opinion that even adjudicating authorities and the appellate authority under the IBC should treat the following process as the bible for adjudication of preferential transactions under Section 43 of IBC: In the first place, the resolution professional shall have to take two major but distinct steps. One shall be of sifting through the entire cargo of transactions relating to the property or an interest thereof of the corporate debtor backwards from the date of commencement of insolvency and up to the preceding two years. The other distinct step shall be of identifying the persons involved in such transactions and of putting them in two categories; one being of the persons who fall within the definition of ‘related party’ in terms of Section 5(24) of the Code and another of the remaining persons. In the next step, the resolution professional ought to identify as to in which of the said transactions of preceding two years, the beneficiary is a related party of the corporate debtor and in which the beneficiary is not a related party. It would lead to bifurcation of the identified transactions into two sub-sets: One concerning related party/parties and other concerning unrelated party/parties with each sub-set requiring different analysis. The sub-set concerning unrelated party/parties shall further be trimmed to include only the transactions of preceding one year from the of commencement of insolvency. In the above two stages the concerned adjudicating authority under the IBC should ensure whether the resolution professional was diligent in performing its duties i.e. to segregate the transactions undertaken by the corporate debtor during the look period, either two years or one year, and then segregating them as per the applicability of, whether related party or not as provided under Section 5(24) of IBC. This is where in our considered Opinion and as held by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad; the Legislature ought to bring about a suitable amendment that explicitly allows other stakeholders to also report transactions which are preferential in nature. Having thus obtained two sub-sets of transactions to scan, the steps thereafter would be to examine every transaction in each of these sub-sets to find: (i) as to whether the transaction is of transfer of property or an interest thereof of the corporate debtor; and (ii) as to whether the beneficiary involved in the transaction stands in the capacity of creditor or surety or guarantor qua the corporate debtor. These steps shall lead to shortlisting of such transactions which carry the potential of being preferential. The next stage clears out the division of categories to whom such alleged transactions have been made, by the debtor, which could potentially be tagged as “preferential” in nature and under the ambit of IBC. In the next step, the said shortlisted transactions would be scrutinised to find if the transfer in question is made for or on account of an antecedent financial debt or operational debt or other liability owed by the corporate debtor. The transactions which are so found would be answering to clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 43. After the division of categories to whom the transactions have been made to, the next step entails finding out the purpose for which these transactions were undertake which would satisfy the checkpoints under Section 43(2) of IBC. In yet further step, such of the scanned and scrutinized transactions that are found covered by clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 43 shall have to be examined on another touchstone as to whether the transfer in question has the effect of putting such creditor or surety or guarantor in a beneficial position than it would have been in the event of distribution of assets per Section 53 of the Code. If answer to this question is in the affirmative, the transaction under examination shall be deemed to be of preference within a relevant time, provided it does not fall within the exclusion provided by sub-section (3) of Section 43. In the next and equally necessary step, the transaction which otherwise is to be of deemed preference, will have to pass through another filtration to find if it does not answer to either of the clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 43. These are one of the most important stages while dealing with a preferential transaction, as to whether the transactions which have met the criteria under Section 43(2)(a) of IBC, if found to have put the concerned person with whom the transaction was undertaken, in a beneficial position than it would have been in the event of liquidation of the debtor, then such a transaction will be stamped as preferential, only if it passes the exclusionary clause under Section 43(3) of IBC in the next step. After the resolution professional has carried out the aforesaid volumetric as also gravimetric analysis of the transactions on the defined coordinates, he shall be required to apply to the Adjudicating Authority for necessary order/s in relation to the transaction/s that had passed through all the positive tests of sub-section (4) and sub-section (2) as also negative test of sub-section (3). Thus, after having gone through the entire cumbersome and step wise procedure, if the transaction is not covered under the exclusionary clause of Section 43 of IBC, then the resolution professional / liquidator [and hopefully, other creditors / stakeholders, soon!] is bound to report such transaction to the concerned Adjudicating Authority, which shall judicially scrutinize the impugned transactions and accordingly adjudicate whether such transaction ought to be dealt with as per the mandate provided under Section 44 of IBC. ***  The authors of this article, Sanjeev Kumar is a Partner and Anshul Sehgal is a Managing Associate in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group at L&L Partners Law Offices, New Delhi, India who specialize in Insolvency and bankruptcy matters. The views expressed are personal.  Section 43. Preferential transactions and relevant time. (1) Where the liquidator or the resolution professional, as the case may be, is of the opinion that the corporate debtor has at a relevant time given a preference in such transactions and in such manner as laid down in sub-section (2) to any persons as referred to in sub-section (4), he shall apply to the Adjudicating Authority for avoidance of preferential transactions and for, one or more of the orders referred to in section 44. (2) A corporate debtor shall be deemed to have given a preference, if— (a) there is a transfer of property or an interest thereof of the corporate debtor for the benefit of a creditor or a surety or a guarantor for or on account of an antecedent financial debt or operational debt or other liabilities owed by the corporate debtor; and (b) the transfer under clause (a) has the effect of putting such creditor or a surety or a guarantor in a beneficial position than it would have been in the event of a distribution of assets being made in accordance with section 53. (3) For the purposes of sub-section (2), a preference shall not include the following transfers— (a) transfer made in the ordinary course of the business or financial affairs of the corporate debtor or the transferee; (b) any transfer creating a security interest in property acquired by the corporate debtor to the extent that— (i) such security interest secures new value and was given at the time of or after the signing of a security agreement that contains a description of such property as security interest and was used by corporate debtor to acquire such property; and (ii) such transfer was registered with an information utility on or before thirty days after the corporate debtor receives possession of such property: Provided that any transfer made in pursuance of the order of a court shall not, preclude such transfer to be deemed as giving of preference by the corporate debtor. Explanation.—For the purpose of sub-section (3) of this section, “new value” means money or its worth in goods, services, or new credit, or release by the transferee of property previously transferred to such transferee in a transaction that is neither void nor voidable by the liquidator or the resolution professional under this Code, including proceeds of such property, but does not include a financial debt or operational debt substituted for existing financial debt or operational debt. (4) A preference shall be deemed to be given at a relevant time, if— (a) it is given to a related party (other than by reason only of being an employee), during the period of two years preceding the insolvency commencement date; or (b) a preference is given to a person other than a related party during the period of one year preceding the insolvency commencement date.  Section 44. Orders in case of preferential transactions. The Adjudicating Authority, may, on an application made by the resolution professional or liquidator under sub-section (1) of section 43, by an order: (a) require any property transferred in connection with the giving of the preference to be vested in the corporate debtor; (b) require any property to be so vested if it represents the application either of the proceeds of sale of property so transferred or of money so transferred; (c) release or discharge (in whole or in part) of any security interest created by the corporate debtor; (d) require any person to pay such sums in respect of benefits received by him Adjudicating Authority may direct; (e) direct any guarantor, whose financial debts or operational debts owed to any person were released or discharged (in whole or in part) by the giving of the preference, to be under such new or revived financial debts or operational debts to that person as the Adjudicating Authority deems appropriate; (f) direct for providing security or charge on any property for the discharge of any financial debt or operational debt under the order, and such security or charge to have the same priority as a security or charge released or discharged wholly or in part by the giving of the preference; and (g) direct for providing the extent to which any person whose property is so vested in the corporate debtor, or on whom financial debts or operational debts are imposed by the order, are to be proved in the liquidation or the corporate insolvency resolution process for financial debts or operational debts which arose from, or were released or discharged wholly or in part by the giving of the preference: Provided that an order under this section shall not— (a) affect any interest in property which was acquired from a person other than the corporate debtor or any interest derived from such interest and was acquired in good faith and for value; (b) require a person, who received a benefit from the preferential transaction in good faith and for value to pay a sum to the liquidator or the resolution professional. Explanation I.— For the purpose of this section, it is clarified that where a person, who has acquired an interest in property from another person other than the corporate debtor, or who has received a benefit from the preference or such another person to whom the corporate debtor gave the preference,— (i) had sufficient information of the initiation or commencement of insolvency resolution process of the corporate debtor; (ii) is a related party, it shall be presumed that the interest was acquired or the benefit was received otherwise than in good faith unless the contrary is shown. Explanation II. —A person shall be deemed to have sufficient information or opportunity to avail such information if a public announcement regarding the corporate insolvency resolution process has been made under section 13.  Vitol S.A. vs. Asian Natural Resources (India) Ltd. and Ors. Order dated 06.11.2017.  Section 5(24) “related party”, in relation to a corporate debtor, means– (a) a director or partner of the corporate debtor or a relative of a director or partner of the corporate debtor; (b) a key managerial personnel of the corporate debtor or a relative of a key managerial personnel of the corporate debtor; (c) a limited liability partnership or a partnership firm in which a director, partner, or manager of the corporate debtor or his relative is a partner; (d) a private company in which a director, partner or manager of the corporate debtor is a director and holds along with his relatives, more than two per cent. of its share capital; (e) a public company in which a director, partner or manager of the corporate debtor is a director and holds along with relatives, more than two per cent. of its paid-up share capital; (f) any body corporate whose board of directors, managing director or manager, in the ordinary course of business, acts on the advice, directions or instructions of a director, partner or manager of the corporate debtor; (g) any limited liability partnership or a partnership firm whose partners or employees in the ordinary course of business, acts on the advice, directions or instructions of a director, partner or manager of the corporate debtor; (h) any person on whose advice, directions or instructions, a director, partner or manager of the corporate debtor is accustomed to act; (i) a body corporate which is a holding, subsidiary or an associate company of the corporate debtor, or a subsidiary of a holding company to which the corporate debtor is a subsidiary; (j) any person who controls more than twenty per cent. of voting rights in the corporate debtor on account of ownership or a voting agreement; (k) any person in whom the corporate debtor controls more than twenty per cent. of voting rights on account of ownership or a voting agreement; (l) any person who can control the composition of the board of directors or corresponding governing body of the corporate debtor; (m) any person who is associated with the corporate debtor on account of– (i) participation in policy making processes of the corporate debtor; or (ii) having more than two directors in common between the corporate debtor and such person; or (iii) interchange of managerial personnel between the corporate debtor and such person; or (iv) provision of essential technical information to, or from, the corporate debtor; (24A) “related party”, in relation to an individual, means– (a) a person who is a relative of the individual or a relative of the spouse of the individual; (b) a partner of a limited liability partnership, or a limited liability partnership or a partnership firm, in which the individual is a partner; (c) a person who is a trustee of a trust in which the beneficiary of the trust includes the individual, or the terms of the trust confers a power on the trustee which may be exercised for the benefit of the individual; (d) a private company in which the individual is a director and holds along with his relatives, more than two per cent. of its share capital; (e) a public company in which the individual is a director and holds along with relatives, more than two per cent. of its paid-up share capital; (f) a body corporate whose board of directors, managing director or manager, in the ordinary course of business, acts on the advice, directions or instructions of the individual; (g) any limited liability partnership or a partnership firm whose partners or employees in the ordinary course of business, act on the advice, directions or instructions of the individual; (h) a person on whose advice, directions or instructions, the individual is accustomed to act; (i) a company, where the individual or the individual along with its related party, own more than fifty per cent. of the share capital of the company or controls the appointment of the board of directors of the company. Explanation.– For the purposes of this clause,– (a) “relative”, with reference to any person, means anyone who is related to another, in the following manner, namely:- (i) members of a Hindu Undivided Family, (ii) husband, (iii) wife, (iv) father, (v) mother, (vi) son, (vii) daughter, (viii) son’s daughter and son, (ix) daughters daughter and son, (x) grandson’s daughter and son, (xi) granddaughters daughter and son, (xii) brother, (xiii) sister, (xiv) brother’s son and daughter, (xv) sister’s son and daughter, (xvi) father’s father and mother, (xvii) mother’s father and mother, (xviii) father’s brother and sister, (xix) mother’s brother and sister, and (b) wherever the relation is that of a son, daughter, sister or brother, their spouses shall also be included;.  Anuj Jain Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech limited v. Axis Bank Limited etc. Judgment dated 26.02.2020. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 237. Next Story
Over 9,000 hospitality jobs at risk in border region Twitter By News Highland – September 21, 2020 Harps come back to win in Waterford Previous articleMcLaughlin delighted for former team-mate BennettNext articleHuge €15m investment announced for Bunbeg News Highland Pinterest WhatsApp Facebook News, Sport and Obituaries on Monday May 24th Facebook RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Important message for people attending LUH’s INR clinic Homepage BannerNews Pinterest Journey home will be easier – Paul Hegarty Twitter Google+ DL Debate – 24/05/21 Arranmore progress and potential flagged as population grows WhatsApp Google+ A new report has found that as many as 9,700 drinks and hospitality jobs are at risk in the border region.In the region which includes Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan, Leitrim and Sligo, accommodation and food service jobs make up 8.3% of all employment.The report, commissioned by the Drinks Industry Group of Ireland, shows that the region, is particularly exposed with 3,100 jobs in the 15-24 age group in jeopardy.The group is calling on the government to deliver a package of support measures including a 15% reduction in excise tax on drinks to support the industry and minimise the risk of job losses.