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.

Digital assets may be new, but existing English insolvency laws and principles can deal with them. So finds the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) in its ‘Legal Statement on Digital Assets and English Insolvency Law’, published this week.

Key takeaways include:

The UK Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in Stanford International Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (Appellant)v HSBC Bank PLC (Respondent) [2022] UKSC 34, striking out a significant claim (£116m) for breach of the Quincecare duty on the grounds that the claimant had suffered no loss.

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

A recent Court of Appeal decision has criticised obiter comments made by the Supreme Court in Bresco v Lonsdale to the effect that adjudication decisions in favour of companies in liquidation could in certain circumstances, and with appropriate safeguards, be enforced by way of summary judgment. The Court of Appeal has indicated that such an approach would be at odds with the mandatory right of set-off arising under the Insolvency Rules. The Court of Appeal’s comments in this respect are themselves obiter and will give rise to uncertainty in this area of the law.

The English Court has, for the first time, handed down judgment on whether the liquidation stay prevents the Financial Conduct Authority (the "FCA") from issuing a Warning Notice under sections 92 and 126 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ("FSMA") without first seeking leave from the Court.

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

InTelnic Ltd v Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH [2020] EWHC 2075 (Ch), Sir Geoffrey Vos sitting in the English High Court ruled that where a debt is governed by an arbitration agreement, it is appropriate for the Court to stay or dismiss a winding up petition without investigating whether the debt is disputed in good faith and on substantial grounds.

This case provides guidance on the high threshold a creditor will have to cross in order to be able to present a winding up petition for sums due under an agreement with an arbitration clause.

A recent TCC decision has provided further guidance on a liquidator’s options when seeking payments owed to insolvent companies through adjudication and the interplay with the Insolvency Rules. The decision establishes an exception to the general principle that such adjudication proceedings will not be enforced (and are liable to be injuncted) where the responding party has a cross-claim.

A recent TCC decision has ruled that adjudication proceedings cannot be brought by companies in liquidation in relation to financial claims under a construction contract. The decision will have considerable ramifications for the practical management of liquidations for companies with exposure to construction contracts. The decision would appear to run contrary to current liquidator practice, both as to the use of adjudication proceedings in liquidations and as to the assignment of claims to third parties, but essentially only confirms the mandatory nature of insolvency set-off.