Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

If a building contractor becomes insolvent, but the build is covered by an NHBC Buildmark warranty providing insolvency cover, when does time start to run for the insured to start proceedings against an insurer who fails to pay a claim?

The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has recently considered this question in the context of an application for summary judgment made by the NHBC, in Peabody Trust v National House-Building Council [2024].

Recent high-profile contractor collapses have made many acutely aware of the need to ensure they are adequately protected in the event of employer or contractor insolvency. This increase in insolvencies has also placed significant stress on the construction bond market. Contractor insolvencies put pressure on surety bond providers, which in turn can lead to increased rates and more stringent criteria being imposed on contractors seeking bonds.

In March 2015 the major high street retailer British Home Stores (BHS) was acquired for £1 by Retail Acquisitions Limited (RAL), a company owned by Mr Dominic Chappell. Mr Chappell became a director of the BHS entities upon completion of the purchase, together with three other individuals.

In Mitchell and others v Al Jaber; Al Jaber and others v JJW Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 423 the Court of Appeal has confirmed that a director remained subject to a continuing fiduciary duty post liquidation when purporting to transfer assets owned by that company, on the basis he was an “intermeddler”. While the case concerned a BVI company, the court’s decision was based on English-law authorities and therefore has wider significance.

Facts

In the recent case of Loveridge v Povey and Ors [2024] EWHC 329 (Ch) a company shareholder sought to challenge the administrators’ decision to rescue a balance sheet solvent company as a going concern by securing additional funding, as opposed to pursuing a sale of the business.

Background

McDermott restructuring plan approved amidst parallel settlement negotiations

The English court has given the green light to the restructuring plan (the Plan) proposed by CB&I UK Limited, part of the McDermott Group, marking the first such approval since the Court of Appeal’s pivotal decision in the Adler case (see our previous update).

The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in the case of Humphrey v Bennett, providing some useful guidance on the nature and scope of a director’s duty to avoid conflicts of interest. The case was an appeal against summary judgment of the High Court following a derivative claim brought on behalf of a company by minority shareholders. The case will be of particular interest to directors of smaller companies whose management structures very often operate on a more informal footing.

Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

Outcome of the UK government's market consultation and the likely shape and impact of the proposed regime