A clause in a settlement agreement, which provided that an indemnity would cease on a company's insolvency, infringed the anti-deprivation principle as it deprived the insolvent company's administrators of an asset for distribution to creditors. A purported "contracting out" of the insolvency legislation was contrary to public policy and the clause was void (Folgate London Market Ltd v Chaucer Insurance Plc www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/328.html).

This was conclusion of the Court in the case of Nicola Jane Haworth v Donna Cartmel and Revenue & Customs Commissioners. The case was an application by Ms Haworth to annul or rescind a bankruptcy order on the grounds that she lacked capacity when a statutory demand and bankruptcy petition were served on her personally.

With effect from 6 April 2011, the London Insolvency District (General London County Court) Order 2011 gives the Central London County Court jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases where the bankrupt resides, or carries on business, in the London insolvency district. The High Court used to have jurisdiction over all London's bankruptcy cases.

The Court of Appeal has confirmed the High Court's decision that the "Balance Sheet Test" (for whether a company is unable to pay its debts under Section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986) cannot be reduced to a single formula or set of principles that apply to all companies.

The Balance Sheet Test forms part of the provisions that regulate when a company may be compulsorily wound up by the Court.

In its recent decision in Century Services Inc v Canada,1 the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) held that, in the context of a Companies’Creditors Arrangement Act2 (the “CCAA”) proceeding, the Crown does not have a superpriority claim over the property of a debtor for unremitted goods and services tax (“GST”) amounts. The decision of the SCC majority rejected existing appellate-level case law, and brought the priority of Crown claims in-line with what they are in bankruptcy proceedings.

The case of Canrock Ventures LLC v. Ambercore Software Inc. et al is a cautionary tale for a Receiver and its counsel alike. In this case, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected a Receiver’s application for the approval of an asset purchase agreement because of a failure to take the requisite steps when conducting a sale process and, in the Court’s view, failing to remain a neutral officer of the Court.

While the construction press seems to be full of speculation over which contractors are currently facing financial difficulties, coverage in relation to consultants' insolvency seems relatively minimal.

In a previous Financial Services Flash, we brought to your attention the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Bankruptcy Court”) in the case ofIn re Tousa. In a decision that raised serious concerns for lenders in the United States, Justice Olson held that the first and second ranking secured lenders of Tousa Inc. (“Tousa”) did not act in good faith and were grossly negligent in providing Tousa with a secured loan less than six months before Tousa filed for bankruptcy.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled in five conjoined appeals that TUPE applies in all administrations, since they constitute ”relevant insolvency proceedings” and not ”liquidation proceedings”. This will be the case even in “pre-pack” administrations, where a business is placed into administration but immediately sold to a purchaser who has been lined up to buy the business beforehand.

The 2010 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Murphy v. Sally Creek Environs Corp. (Trustee of) considered the role of a trustee in bankruptcy as an officer of the court and its obligation to act fairly and with integrity throughout bankruptcy proceedings.