The Insolvency Service recently opened a consultation (the "Consultation") on its proposals for a restructuring moratorium. Under the proposals, eligible companies satisfying certain qualifying conditions would be able to apply to court for a moratorium to prevent creditor action (a "Moratorium"). The Moratorium is not intended to be an alternative to formal insolvency for companies that are already insolvent but is intended to support viable companies reach a compromise with their creditors.

Guidance published by HMRC in its Corporate Finance Manual has recently been updated to reflect a change in practice regarding the corporation tax treatment of debt for equity swaps.

Debt for equity swaps are commonly used in corporate restructuring, particularly when a company is in financial difficulty. They may also be encountered in the termination of joint venture arrangements where, prior to the sale of shares in the joint venture company by one co-venturer to the other, the parties wish to convert any loans made to the company into shares.

Insolvency procedures involving companies are complex and generally take a long time to complete. There is plenty of jargon which adds to the confusion, whereas all that an unsecured creditor usually wants to know is how to make a claim for the monies owed to him by the company, to whom the claim should be made, how long it will take to decide the claim and whether there is a possibility of recovering any monies from a company which is obviously experiencing financial difficulties.

In light of recent reports released to the market, a lender in the leveraged loan market would be forgiven for indulging in some cautious optimism. New-issuance in July aggregated to €9.5 billion - a 13-month high. The year-to-date leveraged buy-out volume of €10 billion (38 deals) compares favourably with the €2.2 billion of volume (13 deals) for the same period in 2009. Against this backdrop, however, lenders should consider the recently released statistics from the Insolvency Service, and other economic data, which suggest that the economic outlook remains uncertain.

In 2009, almost 3000 construction firms entered into some form of insolvency procedure, leaving many parties owed money by insolvent firms. These debts could be pursued against the third party's insurer under the Third Parties (Rights) Against Insurers Act 1930. However, debt recovery will be made quicker, cheaper and easier once the Third Parties (Rights) Against Insurers Act 2010 is commenced by Parliament.

Armed with an adjudicator’s decision and a TCC enforcement judgment, can a party issue a statutory demand for payment, even if the other party has a genuine and substantial cross claim against the sum awarded? No, said Judge Stephen Davies in Shaw v MFP. Neither the Construction Act nor the Scheme was intended to displace the position under the Insolvency Rules, which give the court discretion to set aside a statutory demand if the debtor appears to have a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand which equals or exceeds the debt in the statutory demand.

In the current economic climate, security for payment is key. Although banks have started to lend money again, they remain cautious and those construction firms with weak balance sheets remain at risk of insolvency. This article discusses five pitfalls in the context of some relevant case-law and devices to protect against these.

Summary and implications

The Government is proposing to give struggling companies a protected moratorium against enforcement action, to help them to negotiate a restructuring deal with their creditors.

The moratorium would be available to all companies which are preparing a CVA or scheme of arrangement. At present, a moratorium is only available to small companies* who are proposing a CVA.

In a recent opinion (Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co. SAL and others [2009] UKHL 43) handed down in the final days of the House of Lords, their Lordships clarified a point which may be of some significance for successful claimants seeking to enforce a Court order against corporate defendants.  

Kookmin Bank v Rainy Sky

We have received a number of urgent enquiries about the outcome of the Kookmin Bank case, which was recently decided by the Court of Appeal, in London. The judgment was issued at the end of May 2010 and held, in effect, that refund guarantees -- relating to advance payments of about US$46 million -- were unenforceable by the Buyers to whom the guarantees had been issued. Given the importance of refund guarantees to our shipping and banking clients, we are issuing this summary of the judgment and its general significance.