Despite the economic disruption of Covid-19 and resulting lockdowns, the number of formal insolvencies has been remarkably low.

The recent case of Official Receiver v Deuss [2021] EWHC 1842 (Ch) provides legal and insolvency practitioners with guidance as to the test to be applied when considering whether a third-party costs order should be made against a liquidator who takes steps against an alleged de facto director of the company in liquidation. In this case, the step concerned was an application for public examination pursuant to section 133(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Section 133 Application).

As the end of Covid restrictions rapidly approaches in the UK, a number of businesses are considering how they might deal with the issue of debts which have built up since the start of the first lockdown in March 2020. Whilst an encouraging number of companies have been able to avoid formal insolvency proceedings, the various Government support schemes and restrictions on enforcement action, which were introduced to help companies navigate the pandemic, have led to significant liabilities accruing on balance sheets.

As Covid-19 restrictions in the UK gradually come to an end, the need for distressed tenants to be able to reorganise their liabilities to efficiently deal with the pandemic’s impact upon their balance sheets is likely to result in a number looking to use restructuring plans and CVAs.

Thankfully, a trio of significant recent cases, New Look1, Virgin Active2 and Regis3, have provided helpful and timely guidance regarding the use of such processes.

When finances become distressed, creditors examine all avenues to recover their debt which can result in any intercreditor agreements being thrown into the spotlight. The recent judgment of Re Arboretum Devon is another helpful reminder to lenders entering into an intercreditor agreement (ICA) that these should be drafted with the worst-case scenario in mind and using the clearest language in order to avoid disputes arising at the time of enforcement.

A recent decision of the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has confirmed its jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a decision of the Grand Court made pursuant to section 152(1) of the Companies Act (2021) Revision to dissolve a Company following its official liquidation.

Background

Last month, we discussed practical tips for dealing with contractor insolvency as part of our ongoing construction webinar series.

Our colleague, Doug Wass, has already shared three key points to be aware of when a contractor becomes insolvent. In this article we discuss, in more detail, the practical points clients and those administering building contracts on their behalf should consider when contractor insolvency is suspected and occurs.

Three weeks spent entirely at home seemed daunting at the time (little did we know…) and the prospect of wholesale business closures soon gave rise to serious concerns about the potential impact which those closures would have on the wider economy.

The interplay between arbitration and insolvency proceedings has been a recurring theme across common law jurisdictions in recent months. It is therefore timely to consider the conflict between parties' contractual rights to arbitrate and their statutory rights to present a winding up petition and how a balance can be struck when determining which should prevail.

Introduction

The appointment of joint liquidators can be a useful tool in cross-border insolvency proceedings, particularly when assets are located in a number of jurisdictions. However, courts must ensure that a joint liquidator appointment does not lead to conflicting duties based on the respective laws in each jurisdiction. This was the main issue for consideration in West Bromwich Commercial Ltd v Hatfield Property Ltd, where Jack J was satisfied that the appointment of joint liquidators was necessary.