In a recent case, the court held that a party to a settlement agreement (in this case a broker) cannot restrict the indemnity it is providing so that the indemnity is not payable if the insured goes into administration, or liquidation, or undergoes some other insolvency event. The decision is important on its own facts. But it does also raise questions about the legitimacy of other clauses in insurance contracts which depend on whether or not the insured or reinsured has entered into any kind of insolvency event.

The High Court has set out the principles that apply to the construction of questions in an insurer’s automated online underwriting system and the circumstances in which an insurer’s questions may lead to waiver of the right to be told about certain information. In this case, the Court considered the construction and scope of the insurer’s standard question concerning previous insolvencies, and held that the wording used waived the insurer’s right to be told about other insolvency events not caught by the question.

Background

A Supreme Court judgment issued yesterday has overturned a Court of Appeal decision heavily limiting the ability of insolvency practitioners to commence and enforce adjudication proceedings against their creditors. The court’s decision allows much greater flexibility in the use of adjudication for the administration of construction insolvencies, however some uncertainty remains over the basis on which decisions obtained in such adjudications will be permitted to be enforced against creditors.

Following an expedited trial, the High Court has rejected an application brought by a group of landlords known as the Combined Property Control Group (“CPC”) to challenge the company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) proposed by Debenhams Retail Limited (“Debenhams”).

CPC challenged the CVA on five grounds. The judge in the case, Mr Justice Norris, held that four of the five grounds failed and directed certain “Forfeiture Restraint Provisions” be removed from the CVA as a result of the fifth.

Issue 6 | April 2017 Disputes Digest 2 | Disputes Digest Corporate counsel’s guide to the key cases of 2016 (litigation) Corporate counsel’s guide to the key cases of 2016 (arbitration) Singapore targets effi ciency in investment arbitration proceedings Does the MasterCard class action mark the dawn of a new era in UK litigation?

On 7 September 2015 an act amending the Civil Procedure Code was published. The amendments include changes to proceedings on the enforcement of liabilities. The changes aim to speed up proceedings by computerisation, and at the same time clarify various issues that have arisen in the application of existing regulations.

The guidelines laid down by the English courts for applying the balance sheet test for insolvency affects not only whether a company is technically insolvent, but also the enforceability of clauses in transactional banking documents and the ability of a liquidator to challenge certain antecedent transactions. The Supreme Court’s decision will therefore be welcomed by advisors, bankers and insolvency practitioners as it has overturned the high threshold laid down by the Court of Appeal.

The Court (Mr Justice Miles) has refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement (the “Scheme”) between ALL Scheme Limited (the “Company”) and its creditors. The Company is an entity within the Amigo group of companies (the “Group”).

The government recently published its Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill which includes a temporary “ban” on statutory demands. In its current form, the ban will prevent landlords and other creditors from relying on statutory demands served between 1 March and 1 month after the Bill becomes law. The Bill also includes provision to prevent the winding up of companies where their inability to pay is due to Covid 19.

The CVA challenge

The landlords’ claim against the Debenhams CVA was put forward on five grounds:

1. Future rent is not a “debt” and so the landlords are not creditors, such that the CVA cannot bind them

REJECTED: The definition of “debt” is broad enough to include pecuniary contingent liabilities, such as future rent.

2. A CVA cannot operate to reduce rent payable under leases: it is automatically unfairly prejudicial