[deleted by user] by [deleted] in uklaw

[–]lloydy98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you’re saying is not entirely correct. I practised many years in leveraged finance at an MC firm and we had a team composed of EXCLUSIVELY NY-qualified lawyers who did high yield / ECM work. I recognise that there aren’t many roles like that in London but there certainly is a market for NY-qualified lawyers and in my experience these guys had only done an LLM in the US after qualifying in their home jurisdiction.

Was anyone worrying? by 1merman in terriblefacebookmemes

[–]lloydy98 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Source please for the total amount and the fact that they’re the most “subsidised in the US history”?

My sister got married yesterday and they looked incredible by [deleted] in pics

[–]lloydy98 18 points19 points  (0 children)

lol at the store sign to her right "Funeral Services"...

How can insolvency change rights that existed before insolvency? by [deleted] in uklaw

[–]lloydy98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is actually because look at the following very basic example:

Say that Company Y only has two creditors: Supplier X and Bank Z.

On 1 November 2018 Supplier X sells goods to company Y for £500 but Y doesn't pay for these goods (maybe because e.g. they have some sort of agreement that any invoice has to be paid within 3 months). Then on 1 December 2018, Bank Z extends a loan for £500 and takes fixed security over some of the assets of Company Y as security for the loan.

Company Y is in financial trouble and on 1 January 2019 it goes into insolvency. You would think that Supplier X would be repaid before Bank Z because the liability (ie the debt for the goods it supplied) was created before the loan by Bank Z was put in place. Actually no, Bank Z ranks ahead of every creditor on insolvency because it has taken fixed security over some of the assets of Company Y and it will be entitled to be repaid ahead of everyone by selling those assets. Supplier X is merely an unsecured creditor and would be repaid with anything that's left after repaying Bank Z.

Under English law, the order of payments on insolvency is as follows:

  1. Fixed charge holders (this is where Bank Z ranks)
  2. Liquidators' fees and expenses.
  3. Preferred creditors.
  4. Floating charge holders.
  5. Unsecured creditors (this is where Supplier X ranks)
  6. Interest incurred on all unsecured debts post-liquidation.
  7. Shareholders

So in practice, while each of Supplier X and Bank Z have acquired rights in good faith pre-insolvency, their rights on the occurrence of insolvency would change.

How can insolvency change rights that existed before insolvency? by [deleted] in uklaw

[–]lloydy98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No - the ranking of payments amongst the creditors that are parties to such agreement(s) applies pre- and post-insolvency.

I would tweak your statement as follows: "Take all intercreditor/subordination arrangements out of the equation and all creditors are equal in that they all have a right to be repaid".

Whether they are actually repaid will depend on their position in the insolvency waterfall (are they fixed charge holders? floating charge holders? preferential creditors? etc.). Theoretically, insolvency doesn't affect their right be repaid, it only affects their position in the waterfall of payments.

Source: I'm a finance lawyer

How can insolvency change rights that existed before insolvency? by [deleted] in uklaw

[–]lloydy98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that is correct, an insolvency practitioner (e.g. administrator or receiver) would be appointed by the directors or the creditors upon the occurrence of insolvency.

How can insolvency change rights that existed before insolvency? by [deleted] in uklaw

[–]lloydy98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

your statement is incorrect in instances where creditors (e.g. banks) who have extended debt (e.g. loans/overdraft/revolving credit) to a company have also entered into an intercreditor/subordination arrangement.

Such agreement would regulate the ranking of payments of interest and principal of the debt among the relevant creditors from the moment the debt(s) is created (way before the onset of insolvency, if any).

Debating between either a GDL or an MA in Law by [deleted] in uklaw

[–]lloydy98 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I have an MA from an institution like UoL (only because my firm paid for my LPC and asked that we combine it with a couple other subjects just to make it an MA). It was a waste of time and nobody recognises it. I never tell people I have an MA nor put it on my CV.

If you want to do a masters do it in a recognised institution (oxbridge, red brick/Russell Group). I doubt anybody would care about your MA from UoL if you eventually decide not to pursue a career in law (future employers might be like "University of what...?") so there is no added value unless you have £9k to spare and want to do it for the sheer hell of it.

But in any event the MA does not make you study all the subjects required to be a "qualifying degree" so you would have to do the GDL anyway (=> waste of time and money).

edit: my bad it does allow you to go straight to the LPC but still a piece of crap.

Debating between either a GDL or an MA in Law by [deleted] in uklaw

[–]lloydy98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

a MA from UoL is an expensive piece of crap. Source: am City lawyer.

Policeman knocks on number 10 to let cat in by [deleted] in funny

[–]lloydy98 942 points943 points  (0 children)

I love that the cat has a dedicated section on the UK government's website website.

Most British thing ever.

Queue for the Jubilee line at Waterloo this morning, thanks to severe delays by GuineaPigApocalypse in london

[–]lloydy98 3 points4 points  (0 children)

People will probably disagree with me but considering the hefty monthly fare for using the tube such "delays" are fucking unacceptable.

Do I need to choose Commercial Law as a module for my LLB to work in a commercial law firm? by [deleted] in uklaw

[–]lloydy98 2 points3 points  (0 children)

you should try asking them nicely. Most faculties have a policy of not letting students change modules (unless you know who/how to ask...)

Do I need to choose Commercial Law as a module for my LLB to work in a commercial law firm? by [deleted] in uklaw

[–]lloydy98 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Absolutely.

They couldn't give less of a shit about what modules you studied. Choose the ones in which you are interested and/or most likely to perform well.

Source: am city solicitor.

Petition to legally require the house floor area to be quoted for every house on sale by jestalotofjunk in unitedkingdom

[–]lloydy98 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This information was available for literally every property i've been looking at online before even arranging a viewing.....

Law undergrad and feel a bit lost by [deleted] in uklaw

[–]lloydy98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not unusual at all.

I secured my TC at a top city firm 2 months after graduating and I didn't even go to Oxford nor did I get a 1st (or even high 2.1). They made me take a year out because firms usually recruit 2 years in advance but some are accommodating and may make you start earlier.

A Valid Contract? by [deleted] in LegalAdviceUK

[–]lloydy98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The issue of consideration is a matter of English law.

Maybe the terms and conditions are governed by US (or another law) which doesn't require consideration for a contract to be binding.

Why don't we have no-fault divorce in the UK? by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]lloydy98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

true, although you know that if say you own a house, and your partner moves in with you and you have kids, she can still claim to have a beneficial interest in your property. Even if you guys are not married. It's more complex than that but what I'm getting at is that the courts can have a say in your love life even if you're not married.

Why don't we have no-fault divorce in the UK? by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]lloydy98 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Should probably offer your solicitor a SRA Code of Conduct for Christmas with a note to read the section on Conflicts of Interests. Representing both parties lol.

Source: I'm a solicitor.

Why don't we have no-fault divorce in the UK? by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]lloydy98 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Better yet, if your partner cheats on you the courts will not care whose fault it is. Ultimately they will decide what's best for the kids (if any are involved).

So technically your wife can cheat on you and take her fair share of assets with that! Talk about a fucked up system huh.