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

The Government has announced they will be relaxing the law for companies undergoing a rescue or restructure process, giving them breathing space that could help avoid insolvency. 

Entrepreneurs’ Relief – review and reform

Entrepreneurs that sell their businesses have been able to take advantage of Entrepreneurs’ Relief since 2008. It currently allows individuals to pay only 10% Capital Gains Tax on all gains on the sale of qualifying assets up to a lifetime allowance of £10m.

The Conservative Manifesto said that ER would be subject to “review and reform”. There is increasing speculation that changes will be introduced at the Budget in March.

This decision by the TCC provides further consideration of the right of a company in liquidation to refer a dispute to adjudication. It follows the earlier Court of Appeal decision in Bresco Electrical services Limited (in liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd (“Bresco”) which we considered in an article earlier this year.

The facts

The judgment also provides clear guidance on challenges to an adjudicator’s jurisdiction, which is of importance to all involved in adjudications.

Background

The case concerned two conjoined appeals, Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited and Cannon Corporate Limited v Primus Build Limited.

Bresco

A recent decision in Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited v Bresco Electrical Services Limited (In Liquidation) [2018] (TCC) has held that a company in liquidation cannot refer a dispute to adjudication when that dispute includes (whether in whole or in part) determination of any claim for further sums said to be due to the referring party from the responding party. 

Background

In Coosemans Miami v. Arthur (In re Arthur), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida held last week that individuals in control of a PACA trust may still receive a bankruptcy discharge of debts arising from their breach of such PACA trust. A link to the opinion is here.

The Fifth Circuit recently issued an opinion that federal bankruptcy law does not prohibit a bona fide shareholder from exercising its right to vote against a bankruptcy filing notwithstanding that such shareholder was also an unsecured creditor. This represents the latest successful attempt to preclude bankruptcy through golden shares or bankruptcy blocking provisions in corporate authority documents.

On June 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a revised opinion that held that Federal law does not prevent a bona fide shareholder from exercising its right to vote against a bankruptcy petition just because it is also an unsecured creditor. In re Franchise Servs. of N. Am., Inc., 891 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 2018), as revised (June 14, 2018).

Weird things happen in bankruptcy court. All you high-falutin Chapter 11 jokers out there, cruise down to the bankruptcy motions calendar one day.