On 26 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act^[1] (the Act) came into force.

The Act has significant implications for supply contracts as it will prevent many suppliers ending existing contracts once a business is insolvent. The Act will make a big impact on existing supply contracts, and will also affect the drafting and negotiation of new contracts.

In the final part of this series, we look at how you can protect your position and be prepared in the event of an impending insolvency.

Thinking ahead

It is always prudent to assess insolvency risk before finalising a contract. The trading history and financial position of a company should be carefully reviewed and a financial risk assessment made at both the outset and during the lifetime of a project. Obtain an up to date set of accounts and a credit report before entering into your contract to enable you to assess the counterparty's financial viability.

In the second of our mini-series on insolvency in construction, we consider what you need to do when you find out that the party you are in contract with has become (or is about to become) insolvent.

Who are you in contract with? Which specific entity?

The first thing you should do in the event of a counterparty's alleged insolvency is check which legal entity you are in a contract with.

This is in order to prevent you from acting too early and committing a repudiatory breach yourself, if you take pre-emptive action against your counterparty.

Insolvency is high on the agenda in the construction industry.

In the first of this mini series, we take a look at the meaning of insolvency and summarise the main insolvency processes that can typically affect parties involved in construction projects. The series will also address contract issues and minimising risk, so keep an eye out for our future articles on this topic.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC (PwC) won another victory in the MF Global litigation when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by former commodities customers (the “Customers”) of MF Global Inc. (“MFGI”). This holding is important for its clear affirmation of the in pari delicto doctrine and as a visible limitation on claims by parties not in privity.

Compensation to be paid to a bankruptcy estate professional is many times subject to intense dispute. In the case of a bankruptcy trustee, section 326 of the Bankruptcy Code provides for a tiered system of compensation based upon the amount of money distributed by the trustee to parties in interest. However, as demonstrated by the recent decision in In re Virgin Offshore U.S.A., Inc., 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 233 (Bankr. E.D. La. Jan.

On January 7, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion that may have far reaching effects on cases involving asbestos liability.  Companies with potential asbestos liability, and actual and potential asbestos claimants, would be well advised to consider the Court’s opinion.

Imagine: you are a lender that has loaned substantial sums of money to an individual, secured by real property owned by the borrower. After the borrower defaults and negotiations fail, you seek and obtain the appointment of a receiver. But now litigation ensues—about the loan documents, about contract defaults, about interest rates, about foreign law. After a substantial investment of time and money, your trial date draws closer. At some point during this odyssey, your borrower secretly transfers the real property collateral to a newly-created, single-member LLC.

On October 21, 2010, the New York Court of Appeals (the Appeals Court), New York’s highest appellate court, addressed two appeals, and then issued an important ruling regarding the parameters of the affirmative defense of in pari delicto in suits against outside auditors, holding that the doctrines of in pari delicto and imputation are a complete bar to recovery when the corporate wrongdoer’s actions are imputed to the company.

The Doctrines of In Pari Delicto and Imputation