A Court of Appeal decision last week has broadly upheld previous TCC guidance as to the ability of companies in liquidation or those subject to CVAs to commence and enforce adjudication proceedings against their creditors. Although theoretically possible, adjudication proceedings commenced by companies in liquidation are now liable to be restrained by a court injunction.  Adjudications by companies subject to a CVA are more likely to be appropriate and, depending on the circumstances, may be enforced without a stay of execution.

Insolvency set-off: a recap

In our update this month we take a look at some recent decisions that will be of interest to those involved in insolvency litigation. These include:

Back in August, we wrote a blog about adjudication and liquidation, following the judgment in the TCC case of Michael J. Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited v Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in Liquidation) [2018] EWHC 2043 (TCC) (Lonsdale).

A party on the receiving end of an adjudication is usually in a difficult position. Its situation is only made worse if the referring party is insolvent.

In such a situation, if the adjudicator makes an award in favour of the insolvent company the chances of subsequently recovering any sums awarded in litigation are very limited. While a stay to enforcement may be available, there are costs associated with obtaining a stay which will probably also be irrecoverable.

Using a traffic light approach, we consider the sorts of amendments which might impact on "day one" security.

WHEN MIGHT AMENDMENTS PRESENT A PROBLEM?

If you are a landlord where the tenant company goes into liquidation you should consider your options carefully before taking any action.

In such a case, the liquidator is able to disclaim “onerous property,” which is likely to include a lease at an open market (or similar) rent. The effect of the disclaimer is to bring the liability of the tenant company to an end as well as ending its interest in the property.

On August 26, 2018, the UK government issued its response to its consultation on insolvency and corporate governance. The consultation sought views on how the risk of company failure could be reduced by improving the corporate governance and insolvency framework.

In its recent decision in LBI EHF v Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2018] EWCA Civ 719, the Court of Appeal confirmed the wide discretion enjoyed by a non-defaulting party under the default valuation provisions in the Global Master Repurchase Agreement (2000 edition) (“GMRA”) when it comes to determining the “fair market value” of securities.

In particular, when assessing “fair market value”, the non-defaulting party is entitled to have regard to any distressed or illiquid market conditions that were being experienced at the relevant time.

Events of Default are most often found in the context of loan agreements and are similar to termination rights that may be found in commercial agreements, albeit with potentially different consequences. An Event of Default is an event or circumstance relating to a borrower or its activities which will give rise to a right for a lender to refuse to make any further advances, demand immediate repayment of a loan, make a term loan repayable on demand and/or enforce its security.

The Government will consult on new laws to give consumers greater protection on retailer insolvency, but has confirmed that consumer prepayments will not be given preferential status in insolvency.

This was announced on 27 December 2018 in the Government's Response to the Law Commission's July 2016 Report on Consumer Prepayments on Retailer Insolvency.

The Law Commission's Report

The Law Commission's Report recommended that: