The ability of suppliers to terminate contracts when a customer becomes insolvent is to be curtailed by the Government under plans published in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”).

The recent case of Martin v McLaren Construction [2019] EWHC 2059 (Ch) reminds practitioners to make sure that the debt which forms the basis of a statutory demand pursuant to s268(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986, is due and payable.

You might assume that a statutory demand under s268(1) is a demand for payment and therefore monies payable under an “on demand” guarantee can be demand by a statutory demand. However, the Court in Martin v McLaren confirmed otherwise.

The Facts

Following our 2016 article, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court that dividends are liable to challenge as transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”).

HM Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) has issued a consultation entitled “Tax Abuse and Insolvency: A Discussion Document” on how it proposes to confront those who misuse insolvency law as a means of avoiding or evading their tax liabilities.

In the recent case of Cash Generator Limited v Fortune and others [2018] EWHC 674 (Ch), the Court determined that non-compliance with the deemed consent procedure for nominating liquidators did not invalidate their appointment. The case provides a useful summary on the relatively new provisions governing the deemed consent procedure and welcome relief to Insolvency Practitioners (“IPs”) that a failure to fully comply with such provisions will not necessarily invalidate their appointment.

Brief facts and arguments

A recent decision of the High Court (Goel and another v Grant and another [2017] EWHC 2688 (Ch)) has provided a useful reminder that care must be taken when administrators enter into pre-contract negotiations and the risk of inadvertently entering into a binding contract before terms are finalised. It also deals with the risks of disposing of assets, even those that are difficult to value, without due process.

The Facts

Remuneration schemes involving Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) have become more prevalent over the last 20 years, often as a way of seeking to remunerate key employees without making pay as you earn or national insurance contributions. Given the developments highlighted below, insolvency practitioners are advised to investigate such schemes in matters coming across their desks to see whether funds can be clawed back for the benefit of creditors.

HM Revenue and Customs’ opinion on EBT schemes

The Supreme Court rules in a recent decision over different bankruptcy incidents. The first relates to a work contract to supply materials in which a penalty clause for late work is established, and the ability to execute the works under the guarantee provided in the contract if the contractor may not execute them. Having a delay in delivery of the work and having entrusted to another company the repair works, the owner claimed the payment of the amounts and compensation with the guarantee held.

A claim filed by insolvency practitioners requesting the termination of contract of payment in kind, which was entered into between a party under insolvency proceedings and a third party, centred on the giving of a slicer machine in consideration of debt; whether the credit of the defendant was qualified as subordinated as a result of damages resulting from the company’s inability to operation, and for violating the principle of equality among creditors.

The new amendments carried out in the BankruptcyProceedings Act by virtue of the Royal Decree 4/2014,dated March 7, aims to introduce a viable restructuringof corporate debt, trying to streamline BankruptcyProceedings and prevailing primacy of will.