With a recession appearing to be inevitable, for many companies innovation is more important than ever. Innovating and contracting in times of crisis requires caution, however, and contracts should as far as possible be insolvency-proof. Popular solutions include guarantees, sureties and retention of title. But it may be worth considering a lesser known option, the intercompany settlement clause, which works as follows.

Paying a debt to an insolvent company

The Revenue Commissioners have issued some recent welcome clarifications about certain provisions of the Government's temporary wage subsidy scheme.

Application for the Subsidy Scheme – An Admission of Insolvency?

The main provisions of the subsidy scheme are set out in Section 28 of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020.

That section also contains the criteria for an employer's eligibility to avail of the subsidy scheme. One such criterion is that:

The UK Government has announced wide-ranging emergency legislation in response to the Coronavirus crisis, in an attempt to reduce the burden on business and allow them to carry on trading during and after the pandemic. Some of the changes (other than the one on wrongful trading) were already intended following a consultation process that concluded in 2018 but are now being fast tracked.

In the case of Wilson v McNamara [2020] EWHC 98 (Ch) the High Court of England and Wales (the Court) considered whether the EU principle of freedom of establishment requires that a pension held in another EU member state (Ireland) should be excluded from a bankruptcy estate under UK law in the same manner as a UK pension would be in a UK bankruptcy. Mr Justice Nugee decided in order to decide the case the Court needed to refer a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on a question of EU law.

A recent English Court of Appeal decision has held that legal advice privilege, once established, remains in existence unless and until it is waived. Whether there is no one to waive it; or whether the Crown could have waived it but has not done so; does not matter.

What was the Background to the Case?

On 26 June 2019 the Official Journal of the European Union published Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks, on discharge of debt and disqualifications, and on measures to increase the efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt, and amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 (the "Directive").

Insolvency is a common issue in the construction industry. While newspaper headlines frequently focus on the top ten to 15 large contractor insolvencies, this is not reflective of how insolvency impacts the industry as a whole.

In all construction projects, there is a long tail of smaller contractors that are adversely impacted by an insolvency event that occurs further up the chain. As a result, when parts of the supply chain fall apart, the tremors can be felt by large sections of the industry.

The European Parliament's proposal of 28 March 2019 for a Directive of the European Parliament on preventive restructuring frameworks, second chance and measures to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and restructuring proceedings (hereinafter, the "Directive") aims at developing national preventive restructuring frameworks.

The Pension Protection Fund has published updated general guidance on insolvency and the assessment period. This guidance is intended to help Insolvency Practitioners (IPs) to understand what they should do if a DB scheme employer suffers an insolvency event and their role and responsibilities during an assessment period.

Key points and actions for IPs

The guidance confirms a number of key points, including:

In the recent decision of Re M.D.Y. Construction Ltd [2018] IEHC 676 the Examiner sought to have proposals for a scheme of arrangement confirmed by the High Court pursuant to section 541 of the Companies Act 2014 (the "Act"). The most interesting feature of the case was that the scheme of arrangement was proposed for approval by the Interim Examiner before his appointment was confirmed by the High Court.

Arrangement to be approved the day after application to confirm appointment