Parties in the construction sector seeking to enforce an adjudicator’s decision against a

company with the benefit of a statutory moratorium were given fresh guidance in the recent case of South Coast Construction Ltd v Iverson Road Ltd [2017] EWHC 61.

Facts

In September 2013 Iverson Road Ltd (“Iverson”) engaged South Coast Construction Ltd (“SCC”) to complete various building works in London. In June 2016 SCC halted the work for non-payment of sums due by Iverson.

An employment tribunal has recently confirmed that employees who have been unfairly dismissed from an insolvent employer can bring an action against a connected successor company.

The tribunal held that there was a ‘commonality of ownership’ between the original and successor companies and that it was correct as a matter of public policy that employees should be able to sue the newco born from the ashes of the insolvent company.

The recent case of Re Newtons Coaches Limited [2016] EWHC 3068considered whether a partnership falls within the remit of s.216 Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 86”).

It is often the case, that insolvency claims are pursued against former directors of the insolvent company or persons connected to them. It is also often the case, that such claims are assigned to a litigation funding company given lack of funds in the insolvent estate to pursue them. This is what happened in Lock v Stanley where various claims against the former directors, their parents and connected company were assigned to Manolete.

In the case of Re BW Estates Ltd the High Court considered the validity of a directors’ out of court appointment in circumstances where there was technically an inquorate directors’ board meeting.

At the end of March, the Government introduced measures providing a moratorium on evictions for commercial tenants for non-payment of rent until 30 June 2020.

The presumption that courts normally validate dispositions by a company subject to a winding up petition if such dispositions are made in good faith and in the ordinary course of business has been called into question in the recent case of Express Electrical Distributors Ltd v Beavis and others [2016].

Following on from our blog: Does e-filing give you a headache? Does the recent guidance issued by the Chancellor help ease the pain?

In the recent case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & others [2016] EWHC 1686, the High Court has held for the first time that a dividend can be challenged as a transaction entered into at an undervalue within the meaning of section 423(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”).

The Facts

The facts of the case are long and complex but for present purposes the pertinent facts are as follows.

Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited (now Windward Prospects Limited) (“AWA”) was a wholly owned subsidiary of Sequana SA (“SSA”).

Following our 2016 article, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court that dividends are liable to challenge as transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”).