Our government has a longstanding commitment to cutting red tape. One of the ways of doing this it seems is to propose an Act of Parliament running to 153 pages. Thus we are presented with the Deregulation Bill.

A few of the provisions of this Bill relate to insolvency. The most significant are:

Project Bank Accounts (PBA) are a payment mechanism based on ring-fenced bank accounts created to increase the security of contractors and sub-contractors in a building project. Their main benefits include security and speed of payment and protection of funds in potential insolvency. Sounds too good to be true? PBAs are becoming increasingly common, and with the Government commitment to use PBAs “unless there are compelling reasons not to do so”, their joint value in public sector contracts is expected to reach £4bn by this year.

Appeal Judges in the Court of Session yesterday issued a decision directing that the liquidators of Scottish Coal Company (SCC) cannot abandon sites or disclaim statutory licences imposing obligations on the company.

The High Court has ruled that liquidators of lessors can disclaim leases, thus terminating the leasehold interests of tenants.

However, yesterday's High Court decision in Willmott Growers Group Inc. v Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) [2013] HCA 51 leaves open another issue: do liquidators need to get Court approval before exercising this power, and, if so, how easy or difficult would it be to get that approval?

Key Points

Key Points:

For a company to be entitled to subrogation under section 560, it must ensure that it meets the strict requirements of section 560 and does not pay entitlements directly to the relevant company's employees.

The Court of Session has reiterated that balancing of accounts in bankruptcy may be relied upon by a defender in enforcement proceedings to successfully resist enforcement of an adjudicator's award. See Richard Heis & others as joint administrators of Connaught Partnerships Ltd (in administration) v. Perth & Kinross Council.

A recent overruling by the Supreme Court has revoked the priority status of pension schemes issued with a Financial Support Direction (FSD) or Contribution Notice (CN) by the Pensions Regulator, following an insolvency event. Whilst the decision largely affects companies operating within England and Wales, Scottish Courts are expected to be guided by the ruling.

The 2011 decision

Six month extensions to convening periods should not be seen as a fait accompli, particularly if the administrator's application is opposed.

There is a commonly held belief that courts will readily grant an administrator's application for an extension to the convening period. This might have been true once, but it is fast turning into an urban myth, judging by two recent decisions in the Federal Court.

The recent decision of Modcol Pty Ltd v National Buildplan Group Pty Ltd ^[1] addressed whether leave should be granted to a subcontractor to allow it to commence proceedings against a contractor in administration in respect of the subcontractor's rights under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (the SOP Act).

The NSW Government has accepted some of the key recommendations of the Recommendations of the Independent Inquiry in Construction Industry Insolvency in NSW, including the introduction of bonds. We know that the Government will: