It's been yet another busy year for construction, with BIM developments, greater use of modern methods of construction, looming Brexit, increased insolvencies, building safety progress, a brighter spotlight on diversity...    In this article, we take a look at some of the key legal changes and industry developments for the construction industry, and highlight a few things to expect in 2020.

Legal Changes 

Fewer disputes

As reported in Building earlier this year (4 February) the construction industry experienced the highest number of insolvencies of any UK industry in 2018. Last year saw 2,954 firms become insolvent, an increase of 12% on the previous year and more than in any year since 2013. It is well known that the construction industry is particularly prone to insolvencies and there has been a great deal written about why that is the case and what can be done about it.

In the past five years, insolvency rates in the construction industry have increased more quickly than in other industries across the UK. This article considers the common causes of construction insolvency and how to protect your position if insolvency occurs.

Recent trends

Last year the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that a company in liquidation cannot refer a dispute to adjudication in circumstances where there are claims by a company in liquidation and cross claims by the other party1.

From time to time the statutory rights available to parties to construction contracts appears to come into conflict with other sets of provisions that also claim to govern the same areas of dispute. Perhaps the best known such clash, between adjudication and the effect of insolvency, was that explored in the Scottish case of Melville Dundas Limited (in Receivership) v George Wimpey UK Limited[1] in 2007.

Following recent media reports, with effect from Monday 15 January 2018 the Official Receiver has been appointed liquidator of a number of Carillion Group companies (Carillion Plc, Carillion Construction Limited, Carillion Services Limited, Planned Maintenance Engineering Limited, Carillion Integrated Services Limited and Carillion Services 2006 Limited). The Official Receiver will be supported by a number of Special Managers from PwC.

“[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]