COVID has tested the resilience of the construction industry over the past 18 months: temporary site closures; working restrictions; price increases and material shortages, to name but a few. Those challenges have brought cashflow pressures to bear. Is the next storm to be weathered that of solvency? It certainly seems ever more acute in these unprecedented times.

The Court of Appeal has overturned a decision of the High Court on whether immunity from suit, generally afforded to participants in court proceedings, extends to an examinee during an examination conducted under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("Section 236").

Once a company is facing Administration (the most common insolvency process for a trading business – although see tip 2 below), the Administrators may look to sell the business and assets. This could be a pre-pack sale, or a regular administration sale and it may only be advertised to a select group of potential buyers or more widely in the market.

The UK Government has announced that the temporary measures which were put in place to protect businesses from insolvency during the pandemic are to be lifted and from 1 October 2021. This means that creditors will be able to seek to wind up debtors who owe them money. But, the devil is in the detail. Creditors do not have carte blanche and new conditions apply. In order to continue to promote business rescue, these conditions will remain in place from 1 October 2021 to 31 March 2022.

An individual ceased trading his Scaffolding firm in Sunderland in December 2019 and immediately began employment with a third party; despite which the enterprising former scaffolder thought it would be a good idea in May 2020 to apply for a £50,000 bounce back loan from HM Government in respect of his previous business. Unsurprisingly, the funds were not applied to the Scaffolding business (which had ceased trading) and instead were used to repay third parties.

Earlier this month – citing the “virtually unflagging obligation” of an Article III appellate court to exercise its subject matter jurisdiction – the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decried the pervasive overreliance by district courts on the doctrine “equitable mootness” to duck appeals of confirmation orders.[1]

Judge Stacey Jernigan did not mince words in a recent opinion sanctioning the former CEO of Highland Capital Management, LP. Entities related to the former CEO brought suit against Highland (the debtor in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding), and sought leave from the district court to add Highland’s replacement CEO as a defendant. In Judge Jernigan’s view, such conduct violated her “gatekeeping” orders that required the bankruptcy court’s approval before “pursuing” actions against the new CEO.

A key goal of the Bankruptcy Code is to prevent corporate insiders from profiting from their employer’s misfortune. Section 503(c) of the Code makes clear: “there shall neither be allowed, nor paid... a transfer made to, or an obligation incurred for the benefit of, an insider of the debtor for the purpose of inducing such person to remain with the debtor's business” absent certain court-approved circumstances.

Some courts permit debtors to designate vendors crucial to their business as “critical vendors.” These vendors supply debtors with necessary goods or services. Debtors are permitted to pay them amounts owing when a bankruptcy case is filed. Accordingly, critical vendors often recover more on their pre-petition claims than other unsecured creditors. In other words, critical vendors could receive a full recovery, while other creditors only receive a fraction of what they are owed.

The Bankruptcy Code grants the power to avoid certain transactions to a bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547–48. Is there a general requirement that these avoidance powers only be used when doing so would benefit creditors? In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico addressed this question, concluding, in the face of a split of authority, that there was such a requirement.