The long running question of whether a contractual dispute relating to a breach of a construction contract can be the subject of Adjudication, if one of the parties is in Liquidation, and there are cross claims for insolvency set off was settled by The Supreme Court. Needless to say the two parties both claimed breach of contract and damages. The contract allowed for a dispute to be resolved by Arbitration which the sub-contractor Bresco wished to pursue. This was opposed on the basis of incompatibility between insolvency set-off, and an argument that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction.

In this case the court was asked to allow the convening of a meeting of creditors to consider and approve a scheme of arrangement by telephone and video conference in view of the Covid-19 pandemic. The meeting was proposed to take place on 20 July 2020 when there was likely to be an easing of the lockdown measure. The court approved the application and made the necessary order.

A similar order was made in a more recent case: Re ColourOz Investment 2 LLC and other companies.

Does an arbitration agreement protect a

debtor from the threat of liquidation?

27 July 2020

In this case the court considered a debtor’s application to set aside a bankruptcy order made in her absence (due to self-isolation in accordance with Covid-19 guidelines). It was held that the fact that the debtor was bankrupt meant she had no standing to apply to set the order aside. The court accepted that the debtor had a good reason not to attend court, and had acted promptly to set the order aside, however legal precedent going back to the 1990’s meant that only a trustee in bankruptcy could challenge the liability orders. 

This case was heard before CIGA came into force but the provisions of the CIG Bill were known. Statutory demands were served on 27 March 2020 on the company in respect of debts due under loan agreements and a winding up petition had been presented. The company applied for an injunction to restrain the advertisement of the petition, claiming that although it was insolvent it had been prevented from obtaining funding, to enable it to propose a scheme of arrangement to its unsecured creditors, as a result of the pandemic.

Simon Newman of 1 Chancery Lane recently acted for a petitioner and obtained one of the first Winding Up Orders under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the 2020 Act). The unusual retrospective applicability of the 2020 Act meant that the Petitioner had to satisfy requirements which were not in force at the time the Petition was issued; requirements which creditors had feared brought to an end (at least temporarily) the ability to threaten a company with insolvency if it is unable to pay a debt that is due.

Legislative Context

The joint liquidators of a company, which had been compulsorily wound up in England and Wales, sought orders under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA86”) for production of documents and an account of dealings with the company, in respect of companies in Italy. The question for the Court was whether s236 IA86 had extraterritorial effect. The problem for the court was that there was competing first instance decisions both for and against.

On 1 June 2020, Morgan J granted ex parte application to restrain the presentation of a winding up petition by a landlord of its tenant company, a high street retailer.

The judgment can be read here.

The tenant had been required to close the premises from which it traded in accordance with the instructions from the Government in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. This resulted in a failure to pay rent and service charges.

Winding up a company – liquidation – applies in circumstances where a company is unable to pay its debts. In that situation, the company's directors, creditors or contributories can present a winding up petition. (This can be found in sections 122, 123 and 124 of the Insolvency Act 1986.)

A company is deemed unable to pay its debts if:

The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.