A new funding round could be a good time to sort out capital complexity. We take a high level view.

Many privately backed companies go through several financing rounds and find they end up with a very complex capitalisation structure, with various classes of preferred shares, ordinary shares and deferred shares, not to mention employee incentives and debt instruments. A new funding round is a good opportunity to restructure and simplify this legacy.

The Inner House of the Court of Session has found that, where a business had no realistic prospect of continuing in existence, it was not appropriate to assess whether a property was sold at an undervalue by reference to a forced sale valuation.

The Court’s judgment serves as a valuable reminder of some fundamental principles of insolvency law.

The facts

The Insolvency Service has just released its personal insolvency statistics for 2017 revealing an upturn in overall personal insolvencies (just under 10% more than in 2016) and an increase of around 1/5th (19.8% on 2016) of people entering into Individual Insolvency Arrangements (IVAs). More people entered into IVAs last year than in 2008 (when many consider the credit crunch took its grip).

A company enters into compulsory liquidation when the court makes a winding up order. Upon the order being made, the Official Receiver ("OR") is automatically appointed as liquidator, however, the company's creditors may nominate an alternative licensed insolvency practitioner to act as liquidator. A liquidator's primary function is to realise the company's assets for the benefit of its creditors.

It is fair to say that the insolvency of Carillion has sent shockwaves through the construction industry. While this may be the catalyst for change, insolvency has unfortunately been a risk which has been realised all too often. Looking at the current position, we set out the top ten issues that employers, professionals and the supply chain should consider in the event of main contractor insolvency.

In light of the business news over the last year, including the most current news of Carillion, it is important to know how business failure impacts on employment rights.

Summary: This Expert Insight looks at the case of Ziggurat (Claremont Place) v HCC International Insurance Company PLC [2017] and considers the implications of the case for the surety industry generally, particularly in the context of construction insolvency.

Since the case of Perar BV v. General Surety and Guarantee in 1994, there has been some confusion and misunderstanding as to the implications of this case and whether insolvency amounts to a breach of contract, or more importantly, if it needs to be, when claiming on a performance bond.

This was recently discussed in the case of Ziggurat (Claremont Place) LLP v HCC International Company Plc just before Christmas.

Background

English courts recognise that shareholders hold a separate legal personality from the body corporate they own a stake in and will only go behind the corporate veil in limited circumstances. In the recent case of Onur Air Taşimacilik AŞ v Goldtrail Travel Ltd (In Liquidation) 1 , the Court of Appeal considered whether the financial means of the appellant’s wealthy controlling shareholder could be taken into account when making an order that the appellant had to make a substantial payment into court as a condition of being able to pursue its appeal.

The collapse of Carillion, plus the publication of the National Audit Office’s (NAO) timely and perceptive report (www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/PFI-and-PF2.pdf) on private finance initiatives (PFI) and Private Finance 2 (PF2), has sparked renewed public focus on the impact of such events on government finances. This has led to some scaremongering from the media:

‘PFI deals costing taxpayers billions.’ BBC, January 18