The Supreme Court decision in Bresco made it clear that a company in liquidation does have the right to adjudicate its disputes under a construction contract. Any difficulties concerning potential repayment by an insolvent company to the paying party if the paying party later should overturn the adjudicator's decision should be taken into account at the summary judgment hearing to enforce an adjudicator's decision.

Now, with the case of John Doyle v. Erith Contractors, we have further guidance as to how the court will approach enforcement.

As previously reported, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) had made some permanent and temporary changes to the insolvency regime.

Here we focus on the impact of CIGA on construction contracts and, in particular, how the new provisions impact on construction contracts and the Construction Act.

What is CICA?

Background

Under German law, when a company becomes insolvent or over-indebted, its directors are obliged to file for insolvency. If they fail to fulfil this duty, according to s 64 German limited liability company Act (GmbHG) from this point in time onwards, they have to compensate the company for those payments which (objectively) would not have been made by a prudent businessman. Such imprudence is presumed.

In practice, s 64 is one of the most powerful tools available to insolvency administrators claiming against directors.

The reform of the European insolvency regulation (EIR) comes into force in mid-2017. Inter alia, it will alter the rules on which jurisdiction is competent to open insolvency procedures.

Legal Background

If a debtor needs to file for insolvency, there are two main ways of manipulating the existing legal competence rules:

Summary

A recent judgment (German FCJ, 10 September 2015, IX ZR 215/13) deals with the question whether the recipient of a payment may be subject to a clawback claim if he returned the received amount to the debtor before the opening of insolvency proceedings.

Background

Introduction

The German FCJ (IX ZR 143/13, 17 December 2015) relates to the requirements and effects of a settlement between an insolvency administrator and the personally liable partners of an insolvent partnership.

Introduction

A recent judgment (German FCJ, 9 June 2016, IX ZR 314/14) relates to the interface between the German master agreement for financial derivative transactions (GMA) and sec. 104 of the German Insolvency Statute (InsO).

Background

Background

In Germany, corporate entities are not allowed to act as insolvency administrators (sec 56 I 1 Insolvency Code). Instead, the insolvency court selects and appoints experienced individuals.

Legal background

Under German criminal law, it is illegal for the management not to fulfil tax obligations when due, whereas under German insolvency law a company must treat all creditors equally when the company is illiquid. By paying taxes after the company becomes illiquid, the management would violate this obligation and prefer the state.

Legal background

Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 concerns insolvency proceedings with debtors which operate cross-border in the EU.

Broadly, the law applicable to insolvency proceedings is the law of the member state in which the insolvency proceedings are opened. This includes rules relating to the voidness, voidability or unenforceability of legal acts which are detrimental to all creditors; article 4.