The majority of the building and engineering contracts that we encounter (and draft) require some form of performance security from the contractor, whether this is a parent company performance guarantee granted by the contractor's ultimate holding company, or a performance bond granted by a third party surety or a bank for a capped sum. Indeed most, if not all, standard form contracts provide for these forms of security, even if only as an option.

In standard building contracts most commonly used in the UK, a party is entitled to terminate the contract if the other party is insolvent (Clause 91 of NEC3 and NEC4 and Clause 8.5 and 8.10 of JCT/SBCC).

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 provides measures for businesses that are designed to provide temporary reliefs during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as permanent measures for companies in financial difficulty.

The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.

Insolvency in the construction industry is not just isolated to contractors, sub-contractors and consultants. Industry and economic pressures can affect all parties, including at times employers, therefore it is equally important for contractors to carry out due diligence when bidding for projects and to consider contractual mechanisms that can be put in place to protect against non-payment by the employer and insolvency risks.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).

The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.

Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.

The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.

Southeastern Grocers (operator of the Winn-Dixie, Bi Lo and Harvey’s supermarket chains) recently completed a successful restructuring of its balance sheet through a “prepackaged” chapter 11 case in the District of Delaware. As part of the deal with the holders of its unsecured bonds, the company agreed that under the plan of reorganization it would pay in cash the fees and expenses of the trustee for the indenture under which the unsecured bonds were issued.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. has appropriately drawn significant attention.