The impact of the Italian insolvency law reform (by means of D.LGS. 12 January 2019, N. 14)

The amendments to Article 2257 of the Italian Civil Code

Article 377 of D. Lgs. 12th January 2019, n. 14 (Insolvency Law) has amended article 2257 of the Italian Civil Code regarding the administration of the partnership. The regulation previously in effect assigned the management of the partnerships to the partners. The current formulation instead specifies that the management of the partnership shall be under the exclusive responsibility of the managers, who have to carry out the operations functional to the fulfillment of partnership’s scope.
Such a provision entails significant interpretative problems. Firstly, it is unclear whether it permits the assignment of the management of a partnership to managers who are not also partners. Secondly, the provision causes a considerable confusion with regard to the relationships between partners who are managers, and partners who are not.

Article 377 is already in force.


The impact on the insolvency regulation

The new regulation retains the provision according to which the insolvency of the partnership automatically results in the insolvency of its general partners. The Italian legislator has therefore decided not to adopt the solutions proposed in other legal systems, such as in Germany or Spain, in which the problem concerning the protection of creditor is resolved by means of the partners’ civil liability and not by means of the automatic extension of the insolvency of the partnership to the partners.
Nevertheless, the provisions have been significantly amended.

Firstly, the new regulation (Article 256, paragraph 4) provides for the increase of the number of persons entitled to ask for a declaration of the bankruptcy against the hidden partners (or the hidden partnership): under the new Insolvency law, the public prosecutor and the creditors of the partners can now apply for such a declaration, in addition to the official receiver, the creditors of the partnership and another bankrupt partner.

Secondly, the reform (Article 256, paragraph 5) has confirmed the case law regarding the so-called super-società di fatto. The courts can declare the insolvency of a private company and its shareholders considered as a whole to be a ‘hidden partnership’ between them and the company. However, the lawmaker has not taken into account the criticisms raised by scholars (such as Guerrera, ‘Considerazioni sistematiche sulla c.d. supersocietà di fatto’, in Rivista di diritto societario, 2017, 975 and following), according to whom the proper instrument would have been the civil and criminal liability of the directors and shareholders (and not the insolvency regulation).

These provisions will be applicable from August 2020.


The impact on the over-indebtedness procedures

Article 65 of the new Insolvency Law expressly states where a partnership cannot be declared bankrupt because it does not meet the subjective and objective requirements provided by law, it is subject to another kind of insolvency procedure, the so called over-indebtedness procedure, which also applies to its general partners. These include debt relief and the possibility of a fresh start (i.e. a new start after debt discharging) for the general partners and the partnership itself. The reform has further taken into account the case of a partner of a partnership who also has the status of consumer; for such cases, the reform has provided for the possibility for a partner who is a consumer to apply for a personal debt-restructuring plan in all cases in which the situation of over-indebtedness derives from his personal debts (and not from partnership’s ones), even if the partnership is already subject to another kind of insolvency procedure.

These provisions will be applicable from August 2020.

Useful summary of Belgian partnership law

In the context of reforms to Belgian company law, the law firm Sirius Legal has provided a brief summary of Belgian partnership law, available at https://siriuslegaladvocaten.be/en/new-company-law-is-it-useful-to-convert-your-partnership-vof-or-gcv-to-a-private-limited-company/.

New UK case involving partnership with assets in the UK and India and judgments in both jurisdictions

Tarloch Singh Badyal v Malkat Singh Badyal and Santokh Singh Badyal [2019] EWHC 467 (Ch)

This judgment was given in the course of ongoing proceedings between three brothers who were partners.  In earlier proceedings, the English court had ordered the partnership to be wound up, and accounts and inquiries to be conducted, and declared two UK properties, four Indian companies and an Indian property development to be either partnership assets or held by the claimant on trust for all three partners in equal shares, and that the claimant must account to the defendants for his dealings with these assets as a fiduciary. The court had also declared that a further property was a partnership asset or held by the second defendant on trust for all of them. Subsequently, an Indian court ruled that the three partners should not seek enforcement of the English judgment, insofar as it related to Indian assets, without leave of the Indian court.

In this judgment, the English High Court ruled that although it should avoid making an order requiring any of the defendants to act in breach of the Indian Order, that Order did not prohibit the enforcement of orders for disclosure or the taking of accounts and inquiries, or of in personam orders against the claimant so long as those orders did not require him to dispose of, or alter rights in, Indian property or company shares. However, the Indian Order did not relate to one of the two companies in respect of which the defendants sought an order for the transfer of shares and, in the absence of anything in that company’s articles permitting it to refuse to register the share transfer already ordered by the English court, this transfer should be made. In relation to the other company, the court gave the defendants liberty to apply for a further order if the Indian court, before which proceedings were still ongoing, revoked or varied the Indian Order.

The court noted that since sales were taking place of the Indian property development, there was a clear risk of dissipation of assets in which the defendants owned equal shares with the claimant. The claimant had failed to give prior notification of sales to the defendants, as previously ordered by the English court, and therefore the court ordered the scheme which the claimant himself had previously proposed, whereby a court order would be required to authorise a sale if the partners could not agree on a valuation. Although this might result in delays in the sales, it was required in order to reasonably protect the defendants, and as it only operated as an order in personam against the claimant, it did not breach the Indian Order.

Since the claimant had failed to provide adequate information and disclosure, the court made the more specific and targeted order sought by the defendants as to what information and disclosure was required.

The court declined to order the sale of the property registered in the name of the second defendant, pending further information about the values of all the UK and Indian assets, and decisions as to which properties should be sold and which distributed in specie, and how the proceeds of sale were to be distributed.

New Australian case on whether partners can claim privilege against self incrimination or privilege from exposure to civil penalties

Sadie Ville Pty v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (A Firm) (No 3) [2018] FCA 1107, 357 ALR 695, 128 ACSR 625 (available free online at http://www.austlii.edu.au)

The defendant firm was sued in respect of losses alleged to have been sustained from share purchases made in reliance on representations made by it as the company’s auditor. As a matter of procedure, the Federal Court Rules 2011, r 9.41(2) permit proceedings to be brought in the partnership name against two or more persons claimed to be liable as partners, but the proceedings are in fact brought against all of the partners. (The position under the UK’s Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 5.A3, is similar).

The court held that natural persons - including partners - could claim privilege against self incrimination and privilege from exposure to civil penalties, but legal persons such as companies (and thus corporate partners) could not. However, there must be a real and appreciable risk of prosecution or penalty proceedings, and only a person exposed to that risk could invoke the privileges; as a general rule, they could not do so merely because another person would thereby tend to be incriminated. Therefore, only those partners in the firm who were alleged to be involved in the wrongdoing could claim privilege.

The uninvolved partners appealed unsuccessfully against this ruling in Sadie Ville Pty v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (A Firm) (No 5) [2018] FCA 2066.

It is understood that the defendant firm has applied for leave to appeal and, if successful, the hearing has been set down for 6 May 2019 (see further Shanta Martin, ‘The Hastie Class Action: the Privileges of Partnership?’ CommBar Matters Blog, available at http://www.commbarmatters.com.au/2019/03/08/the-hastie-class-action-the-privileges-of-partnership/).

On the position in relation to the privilege against self-incrimination in the UK, see further Elspeth Berry, ‘The Zone of Interaction between Partnerships, LLPs and Human Rights in United Kingdom Law’ (2011) EHRLR 11(3): 503, 511-513.

New US law on partnership audit

New partnership audit rules came into force in the US in 2018. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP has published a number of brief updates outlining the new rules and the possibilities of for smaller partnerships to opt out of them, available at:
New Partnership Audit Regime Set to Take Effect in 2018 Proactive Planning Recommended
Are You Ready for the New Partnership Audit Regime
Electing Out of the New Partnership Rules

Payments to outgoing partners: Court of Appeal case

Robert Alan Liddle and others v Stuart David Liddle and others [2019] EWCA Civ 346
This case involved a dispute over the purchase of the shares of the respondents, who were the outgoing partners of a family partnership, by the appellants, who were the continuing partners. The partnership agreement provided that the purchase price was to be the net value of the partner’s share as shown in the accounts, that it was to paid in instalments according to a specified timetable, and that the balance would become payable if any payment was in arrears for more than 21 days.

The Court of Appeal reversed the rather curious ruling of the High Court that the appellants were obliged to make payments under this clause even before the purchase prices had been ascertained, and held that no sum was payable until the prices were ascertained. However, it rejected the appellants’ argument that the purchase prices were not ascertained when the accounts were produced, but only when the appellants accepted them, not least because the contrary ruling would allow the paying partners to effectively delay payment by refusing to agree obviously correct accounts. As a result, the court also rejected the appellants’ argument that they were not in default of their payments; they had not made the correct payments within 21 days of the prices being ascertained, and the balance had therefore become due.

Book Review: The Law of Limited Liability Partnerships

The Law of Limited Liability Partnerships, John Whittaker and John Machell QC (4th edn, Bloomsbury Professional 2016), 688pp., hardback, ISBN: 9781784510763
526504852. Also available as a PDF ebook ISBN 9781784510787 and an EPUB ebook ISBN 9781784510770.

Although this edition is not a particularly recent publication, this review is intended to draw reader’s attention to a key text in the important area of LLP law in the UK which might otherwise be missed by overseas readers or those new to this area of practice or study. It is one of two leading texts on UK LLPs, the other being Palmer’s Limited Liability Partnership Law (reviewed elsewhere on this website).

This book is multi-authored and the wealth of practical experience and expertise of its authors is reflected in a book which continues to be a comprehensive and authoritative source of reference on all aspects of LLP law. John Machell QC, the General Editor of this edition, is a senior barrister focussing on commercial law including partnerships and LLPs, and John Whittaker, the Consultant Editor, is a retired barrister. Suzanne Foster, Clare Murray and Bettina Bender, who are all experienced solicitors specialising in partnership and employment law, contributed the chapter on discrimination and whistleblower protection. Colin Ives, a senior partner in a leading firm of accountants, contributed the chapter on taxation. John Goodhall, a partner in a leading City firm who specialises in asset management and financial regulation, contributed the chapter on Financial Services Regulation.

This 4th edition has increased in length but the basic structure remains the same as the 3rd edition, with a detailed consideration of the law relating to all aspects of a partnership’s life from formation to winding up. In addition to the separately authored chapters referred to above, it includes chapters on incorporation, post incorporation formalities, the practical and legal issues arising on conversion from a partnership, and the nature of the LLP as a corporate entity. There are several chapters on aspects of membership, including shadow and de facto members and - albeit briefly as the book predates the introduction of the People with Significant Control (PSC) Register for LLPs – PSCs, covering employment and worker status, designated members, members’ duties and rights (including derivative claims but not unfair prejudice, which is covered separately), decisionmaking, and the cessation of membership. There are two separate chapters on LLP agreements, helpfully covering both general issues such as execution, rescission, repudiation and remedies for breach, and the suggested contents of an agreement. There are several chapters on financial issues including charges and debentures, funding and profits and losses, and two chapters on accounts and audit. There are also two separate chapters on the LLP and the outside world, and the member and the outside world, which both deal with aspects of agency and liability. Insolvency and winding up are covered in detail in nine chapters, with further chapters on arrangements and reconstructions, disqualification, and striking off together with the separate topic of investigations.  There is also a brief but interesting chapter on LLPs in other jurisdictions, and a separate chapter combining a section on dealing with overseas LLPs with a brief section on jurisdiction in relation to UK LLPs with foreign connections (although an equally brief section on the applicable law is not found here but in one of the chapters on LLP agreements). The Appendices include the full text of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 and the Limited Liability Partnerships Regulations 2001, though not – unsurprisingly given their length – the Limited Liability Partnerships Regulations 2009.


The text is highly readable. As the above summary indicates, the reader needs to be aware that some closely related material is contained in separate chapters. However, there are plenty of cross references, and the use of numbered paragraphs and chapter subheadings, as well as the detailed contents list and index, assists in ensuring that all relevant material can be located by the reader. There are substantial footnotes directing the reader to relevant primary sources, and often providing considerable further information. It would be helpful for the academic audience if there were a few more references to academic commentary but, in fairness, this is a text aimed at legal practitioners and LLP law is an area where there are relatively few academic publications.

This 4th edition has been updated to include new chapters on employment and worker status, and on discrimination and whistleblower protection, reflecting the significant decisions in this area since the 3rd edition in 2009, particularly Tiffin v Lester Aldridge LLP, Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP (discussed in the review of Lindley & Banks on Partnership posted earlier on this website) and Reinhard v Ondra LLP. It also contains commentary on leading judgments in other areas including Flanagan v Liontrust Investment Partners LLP (discussed in the review of Palmer’s Limited Liability Partnership Law on this website), the lengthy judgment in F&C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Limited v Barthelemy and others on members' duties, and Inversiones Frieira SL v Colyzeo Investors II LP (discussed in the review of Lindley & Banks) and Hilton v D IV LLP on members' rights to information.  

This edition therefore remains an essential reference text for practitioners in this area of law, and also for academics and postgraduate students. Given the close relationship of LLPs to general and limited partnerships in many respects, and to limited companies in many other respects, the commentary in this book will also be of interest to practitioners and researchers in those areas.

Report on the Joint Conference of the Partnership, LLP and LLC Law Forum and CIBL on the Regulation of Partnerships and Closely Held Corporations

The second annual conference of the Forum, which was supported by CIBL (the Centre for Business and Insolvency Law) and Nottingham Law School, attracted over thirty registered delegates including academics from the UK and overseas, solicitors, barristers, representatives of HMRC and publishers, and students. It is an integral part of the Forum's mission.

David Milman, Michael Twomey and Elspeth Berry

 

The opening address was given by the Hon. Mr Justice Twomey, judge of the Irish High Court and formerly a specialist partnership lawyer and lecturer. He discussed a number of areas of difference between Irish and UK LLPs, in particular the restriction of Irish LLPs to law firms, and the absence of disclosure requirements cf UK LLPs which have to disclose accounts and other information. He concluded by highlighting a number of interesting and entertaining cases, including those involving the Beatles, Apple, and the Smiths.

The keynote speaker was Professor David Milman (Lancaster University), who examined the importation of partnership principles of good faith, based on equity, into company law through the judicial construct of the 'quasi partnership'. He noted the usefulness of this approach to litigants seeking to bring an unfair prejudice petition under s994 of the Companies Act 2006, but also the reluctance of the courts to import such principles, particularly where (as is increasingly common) there are shareholder agreements or other company documents to which those principles would be contrary.

Elspeth Berry

 

In the insolvency session, Elspeth Berry (Reader in Law, Nottingham Trent University) and Professor Rebecca Parry (Nottingham Trent University) discussed the difficulties of adapting corporate insolvency legislation to partnerships and LLP, given the very significant differences between companies and partnerships and, to a lesser extent, between companies and LLPs. Elspeth suggested that the result was that the insolvent partnership legislation governing winding up and joint bankruptcy was unfit for purpose and should be repealed, given that the Partnership Act enables informal winding up and partners have personal liability for partnership debts in any event. In contrast, insolvent LLP legislation should be retained (albeit with considerable revisions) in order to protect creditors. In a separate paper, Professor Parry discussed the corporate insolvency reforms recently proposed by the government, and whether they would shift the balance of power in an insolvency, including through an increased role for directors and a reduced role for insolvency practitioners.

Jeremy Callman

 

In the practitioner session, Jeremy Callman (Barrister, Ten Old Square, Lincolns Inn, London) discussed issues arising on partners and LLP member exits, including the differences between expulsion and compulsory retirement, and their legal requirements and tactical advantages and disadvantages. He also considered the impact of the Braganza judgment, which potentially introduces a Wednesbury-style unreasonableness test into judicial examination of partnership and LLP decision making, both in terms of the procedure followed to reach a decision, and the nature of that decision. Stephen Chan (Partner, Harper Macleod LLP, Edinburgh) then presented an examination of the key differences between Scottish and English partnerships, noting that the separate legal personality of Scottish partnerships may not be continuing legal personality but that the concept of "contracts with the house" may overcome the lack of perpetual succession. He also outlined the very different insolvency procedures applicable to Scottish partnerships, and discussed the transmission presumption whereby if a new firm takes over the business of an old firm and certain conditions are met, it will take over the liabilities of the old firm.

Stephen Chan

 

In the penultimate session, Gary Wilson (Reader in Law, Nottingham Trent University) examined the predecessor to the Partnership Act 1890, Bovill's Act 1865, and the confusion surrounding its enactment. He noted that there was confusion both as to whether the Act conferred limited liability on partners (something which in fact only arose as a result of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907); and as to whether a change in the law was intended, given that although Bovill's Act provided that a lender who received in return a share of profits did not automatically thereby become a partner (as the Partnership Act now provides), the House of Lords in 1860 had already decided much the same in Cox v Hickman.

In the final session, delegates were treated to a change of focus with a paper by Richard Smith (freelance journalist with expertise in investigating limited partnerships for media outlets including the BBC and the Scottish Herald). He explained the abuse of partnerships, and LLPs, in bank fraud and various 'laundromat' money laundering scandals across Europe. He noted that recent legislation requiring Scottish limited partnerships to publish details of Persons with Significant Control (PSC) over them had led to an increase in the abuse of English and Northern Irish partnerships. Finally, he outlined the proposals put forward by the government in December 2018 to tackle these problems, noting that they were likely to be ineffective because they did not address the problems of minimal disclosure of information about firms or partners, or the under-resourcing of Companies House and HMRC.

 

The round table discussion which concluded the event considered:

  1. It was essential to have a regular Conference.The website alone was not an adequate substitute for academics and practitioners being able to meet and discuss relevant issues.
  2. The Conference should take place annually or at least 18-monthly, but two-yearly would be better than nothing.
  3. The Conference should focus on partnerships, LLPs and (US-style) LLCs and any similar types of business organisation, as that is its unique selling point - whereas there are many other general business-or company-themed conferences.
  4. The Conference should continue to include practitioner speakers.
  5. The ideal would be 6 papers, split equally between academics and practitioners.
  6. Other possible speakers or delegates who should be contacted included partnership tax advisers, partnership accountants and partnership mediators.
  7. The Association of Partnership Practitioners(APP) should be approached to see if it would be interested in participating in a joint conference, in order to increase practitioner participation.
  8. Other possible sponsors who could be approached included publishers, specialist law firms or accountants, or local law firms.
  9. September was identified as another possible time of year to hold the conference(eg September 2020) if Easter or Christmas was not possible(and might be more attractive than a winter conference given daylight hours, weather and the timing of the CPD year for Scottish solicitors). NB Conference feedback forms indicated that for some, Christmas was a good time for the conference due to being less busy at work, particularly cf Easter.

Links to presentation slides

Book Review: Twomey on Partnership

Twomey on Partnership, Michael Twomey, Maedhbh Clancy (ed) (2nd edn, Bloomsbury Professional 2019), 1200pp., hardback, ISBN: 9781526504852. Due to be available in various e-book formats from early April.

The long anticipated second edition of this text, published 19 years after the first, continues to be the only book on Irish partnership law. That alone would make it significant but, more importantly, the author (currently a High Court judge) brings to bear his extensive experience as a solicitor practising solely in partnership law, and also as an academic, to produce a comprehensive, detailed and authoritative text. The new edition also benefits from the editorship of a senior solicitor with expertise in partnership law.  

Irish partnership law is based on the UK’s Partnership Act 1890 and Limited Partnerships Act 1907 (without the later changes to these Acts made by the UK, particularly the introduction of private fund limited partnerships (PFLPs)), but with the addition of investment limited partnerships (ILPs) under the Investment Limited Partnerships Act 1994 and now limited liability partnerships (LLPs), ‘legal partnerships’ and multi-disciplinary partnerships (MDPs) under the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. Unsurprisingly, therefore, this book contains ample reference to UK jurisprudence, which will assist those familiar with UK law to draw comparisons. Further, the text notes that ‘there is arguably no other branch of law which is so similar north and south of the border’ and therefore that decisions of the Northern Irish courts should be treated as being of ‘a strongly persuasive nature’ in Ireland and vice versa, and so the book will be of interest not only to partnership lawyers and academics in Ireland, but to those in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. That said, it must be remembered that there are differences; for example the twenty-partner limit (subject to exceptions for some professions) which was abolished in the UK in 2002 still applies in Ireland, and Irish partnerships can only be wound up under the companies legislation if there are eight or more partners (whereas this apparently arbitrary limit only affects UK partnerships to the extent that leave of the court is required for smaller partnerships to petition for winding up without concurrent petitions against the partners).

The basic structure of the second edition is the same as the first. It is divided into five broad thematic parts, each containing chapters on one of those themes. The Nature of a Partnership includes a detailed account of the definition and characteristics of a partnership, including a useful examination of the circumstances in which a partnership is treated in law or commercially as a separate entity, the capacity to be a partner, and types of partners and partnerships (including a section on ‘quasi-partnership’ companies). Relations Between Partners and Third Parties explains both liability issues and litigation, and Relations between Partners Inter Se discusses management and financial rights, fiduciary duties, property, capital, goodwill and litigation (though not alternative dispute resolution), and includes an interesting chapter on the difficult issues concerning the nature of shares in a partnership and dealing with them. It also includes a detailed chapter explaining the recommended contents of a partnership agreement and – unusually – a chapter on competition law as it applies in particular to a partnership agreement or on the sale of a partnership. Dissolution of Partnerships includes chapters on judicial and non-judicial dissolution and winding up, and a chapter on bankruptcy (which also includes the winding up of certain partnerships under the companies legislation. Finally, Limited Partnerships includes chapters on limited partnerships and ILPs. It also includes a new chapter on the three new types of partnership: LLPs, ‘legal partnerships’ and MDPs. However, this edition no longer includes appendices containing the key pieces of partnership legislation, which were included in the first edition.

This edition has been fully updated to include key Irish cases since 2000 including McAleenan v AIG, Quigley v Harris, and Cronin v Kehoe as well as cases from the UK.  

McAleenan v AIG [2010] IEHC 128 concerned the disputed partner/employee status of the claimant, who worked for a firm of solicitors which had a sole principal. In holding that she was not a partner, despite her having indicated that she was a partner to the Law Society of Ireland and on her practising certificate applications, the insurance proposal referring to two partners, and her name being included on the firm’s notepaper, the court approved the UK authority of Stekel v Ellice that it was the substance of the relationship rather than the label which was important.  The court was influenced by the fact that she had joined the firm as an employee and had remained subject to PAYE (the ‘pay as you earn’ method of taxation applicable to employees), the parties had discussed but never reached agreement on the terms of a partnership between them, when the business name of the firm was changed it was registered to the principal not a partnership, the claimant was given a P45 (a tax document issued by employers to employees when the employment ends) when she left the firm, and the firm’s bank account remained in the sole name of its principal.

In Quigley v Harris [2008] IEHC 43 the question arose whether a partner in a limited partnership formed under the law of the Cook Islands was entitled to the tax relief which Irish legislation awarded to a limited partner, defined as including ‘a person who carries on the trade as a general partner in the partnership otherwise than as an active partner’. The court held that since his liability was not unlimited under the law of the Cook Islands, he could not be a ‘general partner’, as the defining feature of that status was unlimited liability. He was therefore not entitled to the tax relief in question.

Cronin v Kehoe [2012] IEHC 373 concerned the winding up of a partnership which had dissolved prior to the expiry of its five-year fixed term, on the death of one of the two partners, Cronin. Section 42(1) of the Partnership Act 1890 provided that in the absence of a settlement, a partner’s estate was entitled to the share of post-dissolution profits attributable to the use of his share of the partnerships assets, or to 5% interest on that share. The court held that since Cronin had brought no assets into the partnership, his estate’s claim under s42 failed. However, Cronin had agreed to pay Kehoe in instalments for the goodwill which Kehoe had brought into the partnership, and the court held that the balance unpaid at Cronin’s death remained payable by his estate to Kehoe’s estate (Kehoe himself having died by the time these proceedings arose) because Cronin had agreed to pay the full premium in return for admission to the partnership, and Kehoe had not agreed to forego any part of it in the event of early dissolution caused by Cronin’s death. The court also noted that although s40 of the Partnership Act 1890 did not apply here, because it only enabled the court to order repayment of a premium where the partnership was dissolved before expiration of its fixed term otherwise than by the death of the paying partner, the result of s40 was that a deceased partner’s estate could not claim repayment of the premium, and it was therefore logical that any unpaid premium remained due from such an estate.

This edition also reflects the enactment of the Companies Act 2014, under which certain partnerships can be wound up, and the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, as well as discussing the proposed changes to the Investment Limited Partnerships Act 1994.

The Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 provides for the introduction of an Irish LLP which is very different to a UK or US LLP, because its members must all be solicitors or barristers. Readers may recall that although the UK LLP was originally intended to be available only to members of the professions - though never only to lawyers, the legislation as enacted made it available for the carrying on of any lawful business. The 2015 Act also provides for a ‘legal partnership’, which is a partnership between barristers, or between barristers and solicitors; and for an MDP, which is a partnership between lawyers (barristers or solicitors) and non-lawyers. These provisions have not yet come into force.

The ILP, a limited partnership whose business is the investment of its funds in property and which is supervised by the Central Bank of Ireland as an alternative investment fund (AIF) within the Irish legal framework for AIFs as derived from EU law, has not been particularly successful, with only seven ILPs currently registered.  However, the Irish government has drafted the Investment Limited Partnership and Irish Collective Asset-management Vehicle (Amendment) Bill 2017 to align the ILP with EU Directive 2011/61 on alternative investment fund managers and to enhance Ireland’s attractiveness to funds. As yet this has been drafted only in principle rather in detail.

This edition also contains a brief explanation of registered family partnerships and registered family succession partnerships, which were introduced in 2015.  These enable general partnerships which are used for farming businesses and meet certain other criteria to be registered with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Marine, and they then receive various financial incentives.

The book is highly readable, being clearly written throughout. The frequent use of chapter subheadings is very helpful, as is the clarity of those subheadings (for example ‘Salaried Partners Have the Worst of Both Worlds’, ‘Goodwill can be Partnership Property if Excluded from Accounts’, and ‘Most of the 2015 Act has not yet been Commenced’). Together with the detailed contents list and index, these aid the location of particular material by the reader. There are comprehensive footnotes directing the reader to relevant primary sources, and often providing further information, although greater use of cross references to discussion of material elsewhere in the book would be useful.  There are some references to academic commentary, and although it would be helpful for an academic audience if there were more, in fairness this is a text aimed primarily at legal practitioners.

In summary, this is not only an essential reference text for all Irish partnership practitioners and academics, but a valuable and recommended resource for their counterparts in the UK.

New UK partnership case on variation of partnership agreements

Dakshu Patel v Kesha Patel [2019] EWHC 298 (Ch)
This case involved a challenge to an arbitrator’s award in relation to the profit shares in two partnerships which each had the same two partners. The arbitrator had found that although both partnership agreements provided for the two partners to share profits and losses equally, one agreement had been varied by a course of conduct, and the other had been varied by agreement, with the result that the defendant was entitled to 100% and 65% of the profits respectively.

The court upheld the claimant’s challenge. As to the alleged variation by agreement of the terms of one partnership, there was insufficient evidence that the claimant had offered to vary the agreement. As to the variation of the terms of other by a course of conduct, s19 of the Partnership Act 1890, which provided for a partnership agreement to be varied by unanimous consent either express or inferred from a course of dealing, required the parties to have reached a consensus. Thus, for conduct to have resulted in an agreed variation, it would need objectively to be capable of unambiguous interpretation as evincing an intention to vary the terms which was then acceded to (see, for example, Joyce v Morrisey [1999] EMLR 233 and Hodson v Hodson [2010] PNLR 8). Although the claimant had instructed the accountant that the defendant was to receive 100% of the profits of the partnership for two years, and had signed the accounts, this merely meant that he had waived his share in two accounting periods and could not objectively be interpreted as him giving up his rights to share in profits for any longer period.  Indeed, the partnership agreement expressly provided that failure or delay by a partner in enforcing a term would not affect his right to enforce it later, and that any variation of the agreement must be in writing and executed as a deed. The court noted that even if the conduct could have given rise to a variation, consideration would have been required (Joyce v Morrissey), for example in the form of an agreement not to terminate the existing partnership if new terms were agreed.

Resources

Biographies

Links

Second Annual Conference of the Partnership, LLP and LLC Law Forum 10 January 2019

Comment List

  • None
This website is supported by the Society for Legal Scholars (SLS) Small Projects and Events Fund. The SLS is the learned society for those who teach law in a university or similar institution or who are otherwise engaged in legal scholarship. www.legalscholars.ac.uk