In March 2018, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) published a consultation on proposed reforms to the UK’s insolvency and corporate governance landscape. That consultation included certain significant proposals, including extending liability to the directors of holding companies that sell insolvent subsidiaries.

On 26 August, the Government announced that it will be making changes to UK insolvency legislation. The changes are intended to support distressed companies and address issues highlighted by major company failures and include:

The UK and the US have historically been perceived as leading jurisdictions in the development of restructuring and insolvency law – to the extent that dozens of local insolvency regimes around the world have been modelled on some combination of their processes. Both regimes are highly sophisticated, and feature well-developed legislation supported by decades of case law that offers both debtors and creditors alike a degree of certainty and predictability that is not always available in other jurisdictions.

A recent TCC decision highlights the dangers of withholding payment against contractors with a view to pushing them into insolvency. The court allowed the recovery of insolvency professional fees as well as a substantial sum reflecting a reduced settlement reached with a third party on a separate project. The court’s decision has ramifications for any party seeking to withhold large payments under a construction contract against a party who is likely to suffer serious cash-flow pressure as a result.

It is common knowledge to many that parties to a construction contract have the right to adjudicate at any time. This is a right implied by statute and a right that cannot be fettered. However, it seems the limits of such a right are now somewhat more nuanced. In the recent case of Michael J. Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited v Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in Liquidation) [2018] EWHC 2043 Fraser J has considered how the Insolvency Rules and Adjudication work together and what this means for the right to adjudicate at any time.

Orexim Trading Limited v (1) Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited ("MPT") (2) Singmalloyd Marine (S) PTE Limited ("Singmalloyd") (3) Zen Shipping and Ports India Private Limited ("Zen") [2018]

In a decision that will be of particular interest to creditors and insolvency practitioners contemplating section 423 Insolvency Act claims against defendants based outside the EU, the Court of Appeal has refused a claimant permission to serve a claim out of the jurisdiction.

The Judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal in Orexim Trading Ltd v Mahavir Port And Terminal Private Ltd (formerly known as Fourcee Port and Terminal Private Ltd) [2018] EWCA Civ 1660, [2018] All ER (D) 101 (Jul) on 13 July 2018 provided important clarification as to the service of claims under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") out of the jurisdiction.

The Facts

Guglielmo Verdirame of 20 Essex Street is advising on diplomatic immunity issues in the bankruptcy case of three-time Wimbledon champion Boris Becker. Together with Tony Beswetherick of 20 Essex Street, Guglielmo is instructed by Julian Cahn of Stephenson Harwood to act for the trustees: Mark Ford, Finbarr O'Connell and Gilbert Lemon. Mr Becker is claiming diplomatic immunity from bankruptcy proceedings on the basis that he is a diplomat for the Central African Republic.

The Construction Act 1996 gives a party to a construction contract the right to refer a dispute to adjudication "at any time"; however a recent TCC decision in England has held that this right is not absolute, where the party referring the dispute to adjudication is a company in liquidation and the dispute includes any claim for further sums to be paid to them.

The decision

The insolvency aspect of the long-running Baxendale-Walker litigation adds much needed to clarity to two practical issues arising in bankruptcy.