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

Introduction:

Wide ranging changes to insolvency law will come into force on 1 October 2015 that will have repercussions for insolvency practitioners, directors and D&O insurers alike. One of the more significant - and controversial - changes allows office holders in insolvency proceedings to assign claims deriving from those proceedings to third parties. The implications of this are potentially far reaching and are discussed below.

New powers of assignment

The Supreme Court has held that, where a company had been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, the directors’ wrong-doing could not be attributed to the company to prevent it (or its liquidators) from bringing claims against the directors. 

Following last weeks’ report from the Banking Standards Commission in which three former senior executives of HBOS were heavily criticised thoughts have turned to whether or not there is enough evidence for the executives to have disqualification proceedings brought against them. The report named the three executives responsible, and said that the bank, having run up £47bn losses in bad loans, would have gone bust even if the 2008 financial crisis had not happened.

How can a director be disqualified?