Legal changes affecting construction businesses from 1 October 2015
1 October 2015 ushers in a number of legal changes which affect construction businesses operating in the UK. We have provided brief highlights of some of the changes below. If you need further information, please contact us using the details on the right.
Introduction
This article considers section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ('IA 1986') within the context of what the courts consider to be a ‘transaction’ when applying for a declaration to do with antecedent transactions. Whilst this article is limited to the consideration of section 238, similar factors apply to applications made further to sections 339 and 423 IA 1986.
Key Point
An English Court holds that a rate saving scheme involving liquidations of tenant companies is an abuse of the English insolvency legislation.
The Facts
Key point
The Court is prepared to look at the overall nature of a directors conduct and dissect a complex series of transactions before concluding what (if any) insolvency failings have been committed by a director.
The Facts
Key Point
Judgement provides detailed guidance on administrators making distributions in relation to EU incorporated companies.
The Facts
Mistaken discharge of land mortgages and rectification atthe Land Registry – can a discharged mortgage secure asubsequent advance?
It is well-established law that a mortgage can be used to secure further advances made by a lender. What happens when a registered mortgage is mistakenly discharged at the Land Registry however? Can it be rectified and used as security for a subsequent advance? NRAM Plc v Evans and another - 2015 EWHC 1543 explores the issues.
The English High Court has, in one of the few successful cases on wrongful trading, clarified when directors ought to know that there is no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation and where the burden of proof lies in such cases.
Background
The recent decision in Brooks and Willetts (Joint Liquidators of Robin Hood Centre plc) v Armstrong and Walker [2015] EWHC 2289 sets out guidance on the burden of proof for directors in wrongful trading claims when seeking to establish that they have taken every step to minimise the potential loss to creditors. We explore the issues raised for practitioners.
The background to the case
The question of appropriate action in the face of directors’ duties to creditors in the pre-insolvency “twilight zone” is a perennial one. In particular, the question of preservation of asset value (given all the hoo- ha about pre-packs), and whether to transfer out assets before insolvency has an impact on value, is fraught with difficulty. Two recent cases offer contrasting versions of how to go about it.
Background – Re French UK plc
We all know that statutory demand can be issued for undisputed debts in excess of £750, and if not satisfied for 21 days, the stat demand is prima facie evidence of insolvency. What happens where there are multiple dents of less than £750 each however? Howell v Lerwick Commercial Mortgage Corporation Ltd [2015] EWHC 1177 (Ch) provides an insight.
The background