The Technology and Construction Court recently delivered helpful judicial guidance on when an insured’s cause of action under an the NHBC ‘Buildmark Choice’ policy, providing cover for contractor insolvency before practical completion arises.

The case of John Doyle Construction Ltd v Erith Contractors Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1452 (07 October 2021) saw the Court of Appeal re-explore the conflict between the adjudication process and insolvency following the Supreme Court decision ofBresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale Ltd.

Adjudication by insolvent parties is an issue that has greatly occupied the Courts of late. Much consideration has been given to the arguable conflict between set-off under the Insolvency Rules 2016 on the one hand, and the adjudication process on the other.

The judgment also provides clear guidance on challenges to an adjudicator’s jurisdiction, which is of importance to all involved in adjudications.

Background

The case concerned two conjoined appeals, Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited and Cannon Corporate Limited v Primus Build Limited.

Bresco

Two recently published decisions in the TCC considered the enforceability of an Adjudicator's decision and insolvency issues

Typically, the TCC has sought to enforce an Adjudicator's decision and the avenues for the losing party to challenge the award is narrow. The case law regarding what may and may not give rise to a successful challenge is well known and outside the scope of this note.

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.