According to press reports, utilities contractor NMCN (formerly North Midland Construction) plc and its subsidiary NMCN Sustainable Solutions Limited, have gone into administration.

Administration is the procedure by which a company that is, or is likely to become, insolvent can be reorganised or have its assets realised for the benefit of creditors. The primary aim of an administration is to rescue the company so that it can continue to trade as a going concern. If this is not possible, a company may go into administration for two other purposes:

We are frequently approached by architects looking to wind down their practices, because either (i) they want to retire, (ii) they want to close down because of economic uncertainty, or (iii) they simply do not want to carry on with their practice and they will gain little value in selling it. However, in winding down a practice, we recommend the following key issues are considered:

1. Your contractual and professional obligations as an architect to maintain professional indemnity insurance run-off cover; and

Entrepreneurs’ Relief – review and reform

Entrepreneurs that sell their businesses have been able to take advantage of Entrepreneurs’ Relief since 2008. It currently allows individuals to pay only 10% Capital Gains Tax on all gains on the sale of qualifying assets up to a lifetime allowance of £10m.

The Conservative Manifesto said that ER would be subject to “review and reform”. There is increasing speculation that changes will be introduced at the Budget in March.

A number of companies within the Carillion group have been placed in compulsory liquidation. The Official Receiver has been appointed as liquidator, with support from PwC. It has been confirmed that there is no prospect of any return to shareholders.

Given the size of Carillion, the UK's second-biggest construction company, with 43,000 employees and contracts on a wide range of projects, including a number of flagship infrastructure projects, this will inevitably have a significant impact on the UK construction sector as a whole. Official advice from PwC is:

On July 6-7, 2017, Craig Jalbert, in his capacity as Trustee for F2 Liquidating Trust, filed approximately 187 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code (depending on the nature of the claims). In certain instances, the Trustee also seeks to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On June 15, 2017, Curtis R. Smith, as Liquidating Trustee of the Hastings Creditors’ Liquidating Trust, filed approximately 69 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Liquidating Trustee also seeks to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On June 13, 2017, The Original Soupman, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively “Debtors” or “Original Soupman”) commenced voluntary bankruptcy proceedings under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. According to its petition, Original Soupman estimates that its assets are between $1 million and $10 million, and its liabilities are between $10 million and $50 million.

On May 17, 2017, GulfMark Offshore, Inc. (“GulfMark” or “Debtor”) filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Starting on April 28, 2017, Craig R. Jalbert, as Distribution Trustee of the Corinthian Distribution Trust, filed approximately 122 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548, 549 and and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code (depending upon the nature of the underlying transactions). The Distribution Trustee also seeks to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Whether a claim against company management is direct or derivative is not infrequently disputed in litigation before the Delaware Court of Chancery. This determination becomes important in many contexts, including whether it was necessary for plaintiff to make a pre-suit demand upon the board, whether derivative claims of a company have been assigned to a receiver, or whether such claims have previously been settled in a prior litigation.