The Privy Council has recently delivered a landmark judgment on the interplay between arbitration agreements and winding up petitions. The Board held that the English case of Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1575; Ch 589, which had adopted a pro-arbitration approach to stay or dismiss winding up petitions based on debts covered by arbitration agreements, even if the debts were not genuinely disputed on substantial grounds was wrongly decided.

Insolvency related claims in relation to contracts subject to arbitration agreements continue to result in interesting challenges for the English court. In a recent decision the court had to decide whether an application for a summary judgment amounted to a step in the proceedings such that the applicant had waived its right to seek a stay in favour of arbitration.

Background

The English courts are known for being pro-arbitration. In the recent case of Riverrock Securities Limited v International Bank of St Petersburg (Joint Stock Company) [2020] EWHC 2483 (Comm) the English High Court has granted an anti-suit injunction in relation to claims being made in foreign bankruptcy proceedings, where the underlying agreements included arbitration provisions with a London seat.

The parties

Proposed amendments to the Recovery and Restructuring of Credit Institutions and Investment Intermediaries Act, effective as of 14 August 2015 (“Recovery and Restructurings Act”) provide that stress tests should be carried out for insurers and reinsurers. If approved by the Parliament, the changes will necessitate the organising and performing of stress tests for insurers and reinsurers within a tight timeframe, by the end of 2016.

A number of changes have been made to insolvency procedure to remove various discrepancies and controversial practices: