Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs)

Applicable law

It is important to note that the law relating to partnerships does not automatically apply to a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), unless otherwise provided. Unlike general partnerships, LLPs have a separate legal personality. LLPs were essentially created to deal with potentially large negligence claims against entities which could bankrupt the underlying partners, who may not necessarily have done anything wrong themselves. Many professional service firms, such as solicitors and accountants, trade as LLPs. The most important distinction between LLPs and general partnerships is that (i) individual members of an LLP will not prima facie be liable for its negligence (unless they are the cause of it) and (ii) the members do not have open-ended personal liability on the LLP's insolvency.

Applicable legislation includes:

  1. the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000

  2. the Limited Liability Partnerships Regulations 2001 (LLPR 2001), SI 2001/1090 (as amended)—which apply the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, SI 2016/1024 to LLPs, subject to necessary modifications

  3. the Limited Liability Partnerships (Amendment etc) Regulations 2021, SI 2021/60—which apply the Corporate Insolvency

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Restructuring & Insolvency News

Fossil secures court approval for innovative UK restructuring plan (Re Fossil (UK) Global Services Ltd)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court sanctioned the restructuring plan of Fossil (UK) Global Services Ltd under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) (the ‘Plan’), following near‑unanimous approval (99.99% by value) from a single class of noteholders, comprising both retail and wholesale creditors. Mr Justice Richards applied the four‑stage test set out by Lord Justice Snowden in Re AGPS Bondco Plc (‘Adler’): (i) whether the statutory requirements were satisfied, (ii) whether the class was fairly represented and voted bona fide in the interests of the class, (iii) whether the plan was fair and could reasonably have been approved (the so‑called ‘limited rationality test’), and (iv) whether any legal ‘blot’ or defect existed. The court placed particular emphasis on the quality and accessibility of information provided to retail creditors, noting that the involvement of an independent Retail Advocate helped ensure that they were properly informed and adequately represented throughout the process. Concerns regarding the participation rights of ‘New‑Money’ providers and the appropriateness of a single class were considered and rejected, with the judge satisfied that all creditors were better off under the Plan than under the relevant alternative. No defects were identified, and expert evidence supported the conclusion that the Plan would likely be recognised in the US, thereby ensuring its cross‑border effectiveness. Written by Brian Rostron, associate at Addleshaw Goddard LLP.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :

Popular documents