The recent case of Breyer Group plc v RBK Engineering Limited considered the use of winding up petitions in construction contracts.

An application was made by Breyer to stop RBK from continuing with a petition to wind up the company. The court decided that winding up petitions can operate as a form of commercial oppression and may not be appropriate, especially when adjudication or ordinary proceedings would be a more appropriate forum for the dispute.

The background

After ten years of operation the European Insolvency Regulation (Regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000) has been extensively reviewed by the European Commission, European Parliament and Council. On 20 May 2015, the European Parliament approved the result of that review: the recast Insolvency Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 2015/848) (the “Regulation”), which applies to insolvency proceedings commencing from 26 June 2017.

Gift vouchers are often considered an easy and convenient option when purchasing gifts for friends and family. For the relative with unusual taste, the friend who lives in another part of the UK or the husband and wife to be who already have everything, a gift voucher may appear to be the ideal gift. But what happens if, before the recipient has the opportunity to redeem the voucher, the relevant retailer becomes insolvent?

In terms of current insolvency law consumers are ordinary creditors who rank at the bottom of the statutory hierarchy of creditors.

Addressing a circuit split over a trademark licensee’s rights following a debtor/licensor’s bankruptcy, the US Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) for the First Circuit held that, although trademarks and trade names are not included in bankruptcy law’s definition of “intellectual property,” the licensee’s rights to use the licensor’s trademarks as set forth in the agreement were not terminated by the debtor’s rejection of the agreement. Mission Prod. Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, Case No. 15-065 (BAP, 1st Cir., 2016) (Hoffman, J).

“Top hat plans” have many attractive features, but a new court decision is a reminder that top hat plan participants have limited protections under ERISA – and that assets held in a rabbi trust are not protected from the claims of creditors upon the employer’s bankruptcy or insolvency.

December 2 marks the 15th anniversary of the Enron bankruptcy—a near cataclysmic event that ultimately led to a series of significant legislative, regulatory and public policy developments that inform governance practices to this day. The entire board would be well served by a brief overview of the governance impact of Enron, particularly since many directors were not in board service 15 years ago.

The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 came into force yesterday, 30 November 2016, together with other consequential amendments and changes to the Court Rules which relate to bankruptcy in Scotland.

When considering whether or not to bring a legal action, it is important to establish if it is competent and commercially worthwhile to do so. The ability to bring, or continue with, legal proceedings against a company can be restricted if that company enters into a formal insolvency process. The position of creditors may be improved now that the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 has at last been brought into force.

Bankruptcy made clearer: One of the bastions of old-style Scots terminology, guaranteed to perplex Southern audiences, is the law of bankruptcy in Scotland as it applies to individuals and assorted others.

But maybe for no longer. The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 has reached the statute book. It’s a consolidating act, encompassing statutes from 1985, 1993, 2002, 2007, 2012 and 2014. It introduces a new and fairly modern framework, the aim being to make it less cumbersome and easier to use by those who do not have intimate knowledge of it (most of us!).

On July 14, 2016, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that the restructuring of a planned $1.5 billion transaction between Tullett Prebon Group Ltd. (Tullett Prebon) and ICAP plc adequately addresses the DOJ’s concerns that the transaction would violate Section 8 of the Clayton Act by creating an interlocking directorate. The parties restructured their transaction after the DOJ issued a Second Request to adequately investigate the parties post-closing ownership structure.