This is the second in a series of articles on how the changes introduced by the 2024 JCT (Joint Contracts Tribunal) contracts will impact the practical administration of the JCT contractual mechanisms.

In this article, we look specifically at the insolvency related provisions in the 2024 Design and Build (D&B) contract and the 2024 Intermediate Building Contract with Contractor’s design (ICD) contract. We address the updates to the definition of insolvency, the impact of those changes for Employers and Contractors and the related knock-on impact to sub-contracts.

Although an insolvency case, the judgment of His Honour Judge Paul Matthews, sitting as a High Court Judge, in Broom v Aguilar [2024] EWHC 1764 (Ch) deals with a service issue of more general importance.

The judgment of Nicholas Thompsell, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, in Hellard & Ors v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank & Ors [2024] EWHC 1783 (Ch) deals with three questions raised by an application of the trustees in bankruptcy of Anatoly Leonidovich Motylev for directions under s 303(2) Insolvency Act 1986:

(1) Should the trustees treat certain Russian bank creditors as being caught by the sanctions imposed under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019?

In December 2012, Halimeda International Ltd lent $140m to Sian Participation Corp. The loan agreement provided that any claim, dispute or difference of whatever nature arising under, out of or in connection with the loan should be referred to arbitration. In September 2020, in proceedings akin to a winding up petition, Halimeda applied to have liquidators appointed over Sian under the BVI Insolvency Act 2003. Wallbank J held that Sian had failed to show that the debt was disputed on genuine and substantial grounds and ordered that the company be put into liquidation.

On July 2, 2024, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (the “Court”) released its highly anticipated decision in British Columbia v. Peakhill Capital Inc., 2024 BCCA 246 (“Peakhill”) concerning the use of reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) to effect sale transactions structured to avoid provincial property transfer taxes for the benefit of creditors.

Restructuring Plans: should an opposing creditor be granted security for costs? Might that open the floodgates where companies are by definition “distressed,” or was this particular Plan more akin to ordinary adversarial litigation? Read our summary below.

Many litigators and corporate lawyers view the practice of representing a large shareholder and the company in which it is invested as common practice. In many instances, no conflict of interest will ever materialize such that the shareholder and the company require separate representation. However, in a recent opinion rendered by the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia (the “Court”), a large international law firm (the “Firm”) was disqualified from representing Enviva Inc.

In a recent judgment¹, the High Court determined (contrary to the arguments of the affected secured creditor) that a debenture created a floating charge rather than a fixed charge over certain internet protocol (IP) addresses. Whilst elements of the decision are inevitably fact-specific, some broader lessons and reminders can be taken from the judgment which will be of general relevance to lenders when taking security.

Deputy ICC Judge Curl KC’s judgment in Wade & Anor v Singh & Ors [2024] EWHC 1203 (Ch) follows applications by the liquidators of MSD Cash & Carry plc to enforce charging orders over a number of properties owned by the defendants, all of them members of the same family. The main protagonists were Mohinder Singh, Surjit Singh Deol and Raminder Kaur Deol, Mohinder being the father of Surjit, and Raminder, married to Surjit. The estate of a deceased family member was added as a party.

Phoenix Tech Ltd had carried on business to defraud HMRC by participating in a kind of VAT fraud sometimes called “missing trader intra-community” fraud or “carousel” fraud. It had submitted a VAT return claiming the right to deduct VAT and a repayment in respect of various transactions in the sum of £4.5 million. HMRC denied the input tax claim in relation to the transactions and issued a misdeclaration penalty for £607,387. The company appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber).