Two recent court decisions may indicate more uncertainty with respect to the enforceability of “make-whole” premiums in bankruptcy. Make-whole or prepayment premiums are common within loan agreements, bond issuances and other debt instruments.
In our original article, we prefaced that Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) would likely utilize the Texas Two Step to attempt to resolve its tort liabilities related to talc powder.1 On October 12, 2021, J&J did just that. The company used Texas’s divisive merger statute to spinoff the talc liabilities into a new entity, LTL Management, LLC (“LTL”).
The case of John Doyle Construction Ltd v Erith Contractors Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1452 (07 October 2021) saw the Court of Appeal re-explore the conflict between the adjudication process and insolvency following the Supreme Court decision ofBresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale Ltd.
According to press reports, utilities contractor NMCN (formerly North Midland Construction) plc and its subsidiary NMCN Sustainable Solutions Limited, have gone into administration.
Administration is the procedure by which a company that is, or is likely to become, insolvent can be reorganised or have its assets realised for the benefit of creditors. The primary aim of an administration is to rescue the company so that it can continue to trade as a going concern. If this is not possible, a company may go into administration for two other purposes:
As Andrew Jones and Daniela Miklova report, the recent case of Ristorante Limited t/a Bar Massimo v Zurich Insurance plc [2021] EWHC 2538 is a useful insight into how the Court will interpret the questions and answers in insurers’ proposal forms in coverage disputes. It also shows how insurers can lose potential policy defences through the drafting of proposal form questions going wrong.
We discussed in the March 2020 edition of the Texas Bar Journal1 the bankruptcy court ruling by Judge Craig A. Gargotta of San Antonio in In Re First River Energy LLC that oil and gas producers in Texas do not hold perfected security interests in oil and gas well proceeds, notwithstanding the Texas Legislature’s efforts to protect producers and royalty owners following the downturn in the 1980s. The Fifth Circuit recently reaffirmed Judge Gargotta’s decision.
This article sets out some reflections on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Limited [2020] UKSC 31 from July 2020 which clarifies the scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ rule. The first instance judgment raised some comment-worthy issues regarding the economic torts which were not the subject of any appeal.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”), which came into force on 26 June 2020, introduced a series of new “debtor friendly” procedures and measures to give companies the breathing space and tools required to maximize their chance of survival. The main insolvency related reforms in CIGA (which incorporates both permanent and temporary changes to the UK’s laws) include:
1. New moratorium to give companies breathing space from their creditors
2. Prohibition on termination of contracts for the supply of goods and services by reason of insolvency
Adjudication by insolvent parties is an issue that has greatly occupied the Courts of late. Much consideration has been given to the arguable conflict between set-off under the Insolvency Rules 2016 on the one hand, and the adjudication process on the other.
We are frequently approached by architects looking to wind down their practices, because either (i) they want to retire, (ii) they want to close down because of economic uncertainty, or (iii) they simply do not want to carry on with their practice and they will gain little value in selling it. However, in winding down a practice, we recommend the following key issues are considered:
1. Your contractual and professional obligations as an architect to maintain professional indemnity insurance run-off cover; and