Halliwells delays repayment of partner loans after exits
Halliwells has arranged with its lender to delay repaying a number of professional practice loans in a bid to keep cash in the business. Following the departure of a number of partners, the national firm has agreed with its bank that in six individual circumstances it will delay paying back professional practice loans - money that individuals borrow from the bank to put into the firm on joining the equity. The money will now not be repaid in full until the former partners' official notice period has come to an end, even if the partner has left the firm before the notice period is up.
June 09, 2010 at 05:29 AM
2 minute read
Bank loans to be repaid after former partners' notice period ends
Halliwells has arranged with its lender to delay repaying a number of professional practice loans in a bid to keep cash in the business.
Following the departure of a number of partners, the national firm has agreed with its bank that in six individual circumstances it will delay paying back professional practice loans – money that individuals borrow from the bank to put into the firm on joining the equity. The money will now not be repaid in full until the former partners' official notice period has come to an end, even if the partner has left the firm before the notice period is up.
Halliwells had previously agreed with the bank that it would pay back the loan – understood in some circumstances to be a six-figure sum – within seven days of a partner's departure.
The news comes as it emerges that a number of former partners have drawn more profits than they were due.
In one instance the firm has suggested that an ex-partner offsets money he has overdrawn by paying back part of his professional practice loan himself.
Earlier this year, Halliwells renegotiated £20m of bank facilities to secure its finances for the next three years. As part of the agreement the firm is no longer required to maintain a minimum number of equity partners after coming close to breaching the 37 necessary. Halliwells instead agreed to keep at least £12.9m of capital in the firm.
At the time the firm agreed to lock members' capital not borrowed through a professional practice loan into the firm until the banking facility expires. This means that exiting partners who paid in their own capital to join the equity, or those who left their drawings in the firm to pay off borrowed capital, must wait until 2013 before their capital is returned.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllApple Subsidiaries in Belgium and France Sued by DRC Over Conflict Minerals
2 minute readDLA Piper, Heuking & Other Key Moves as German Legal Market Reshuffles Ahead of 2025
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250