The long running question of whether a contractual dispute relating to a breach of a construction contract can be the subject of Adjudication, if one of the parties is in Liquidation, and there are cross claims for insolvency set off was settled by The Supreme Court. Needless to say the two parties both claimed breach of contract and damages. The contract allowed for a dispute to be resolved by Arbitration which the sub-contractor Bresco wished to pursue. This was opposed on the basis of incompatibility between insolvency set-off, and an argument that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction.

In this case the court was asked to allow the convening of a meeting of creditors to consider and approve a scheme of arrangement by telephone and video conference in view of the Covid-19 pandemic. The meeting was proposed to take place on 20 July 2020 when there was likely to be an easing of the lockdown measure. The court approved the application and made the necessary order.

A similar order was made in a more recent case: Re ColourOz Investment 2 LLC and other companies.

The court held in this case that a costs order in favour of the debtor, in respect of a discontinued bankruptcy petition for the same debt, due to the petitioner, could be set off against the sums due in respect of a second bankruptcy petition brought against the debtor by the same petitioner. The debtor had argued that the petition should be stayed until the previous costs order had been paid.

Introduction

With grimly apposite timing, in June, the Supreme Court gave its decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in Liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd and turned on its head the construction industry’s understanding of an insolvent company’s right to pursue an adjudication. It will fundamentally affect construction insolvencies.

The case concerned an insolvency practice which had been placed into compulsory liquidation. The Applicants had been appointed liquidators. However, between the presentation of the petition and the winding up order, the assets of the insolvency practice were transferred to another practice, resulting in a claim under section 127 IA86 to declare the transfer void. In addition, the liquidators sought to have transferred to themselves the insolvency cases of the two practitioners of the former practice. The application was by way of the block transfer procedure.

Preventive Restructuring

Intro

The UK insolvency regime has changed. Our earlier alert set out a brief overview of the changes. This is note provides more detail and flags some practical steps that the suppliers of goods and services may wish to consider.

In a nutshell

On 19 June 2020, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted law (draft law No. 2284) aimed at introducing sweeping new changes to regulation of financial instruments (the Law). The Law has also paved the way for a wide range of new financial instruments such as derivatives, green bonds, loan notes, and other structured finance products.

On 19 June 2020, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted law (draft law No. 2284) aimed at introducing sweeping new changes to regulation of financial instruments (the Law). The Law has also paved the way for a wide range of new financial instruments such as derivatives, green bonds, loan notes, and other structured finance products.

The rapidly changing impact of COVID-19 on companies and the wider economy presents directors with the unenviable task of balancing the immediate need to secure the survival of their company against the longer-term implications for their stakeholders. In March, the UK Government announced that wrongful trading measures would be temporarily suspended to ease this pressure. The suspension measures are included in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, which introduces both temporary measures, such as this, and permanent and significant changes to UK insolvency law.