The Insolvency Service has recently published a helpful guide about the restrictions on the re-use of a name previously used by a company, which has gone into liquidation. Directors of companies in insolvent liquidation need to take special care, as the restriction applies to them personally and contravention is a criminal offence. The restriction lasts for five years from the date of liquidation and, save in limited circumstances, a director is not allowed to be a director of or take part in the promotion, formation or management of a limited company that uses a "prohibited name".

As the economic clouds continue to darken and the threat of a double-dip recession increases, concern about exposure to unsecured bad debts will inevitably dominate the agenda of many companies. If the worst happens and a significant bad debt is incurred, many creditors are reluctant to review the possibilities afforded to them by the Insolvency Act 1986 and seek the solace of VAT bad debt relief. This is often the case even where it is suspected that the directors of the insolvent company have been culpable of misconduct.

Appointing administrators out of court has been thrown into complete disarray following Sir Andrew Morritt’s comments in Minmar. In that case, he said a directors’ out of court appointment would have been invalid if the company had not been given notice of the intention to appoint administrators.

A common fact in any transaction, is the effect of human relations, daily life and commercial realities. The legal do's and don'ts are often overtaken by practicalities. An example is a need for a tenant to enter into occupation of premises.

The recent case of Mann Aviation Group (Engineering) Ltd (in Administration) v Longmint Aviation Limited Ltd dealt with the rights of an occupier going into possession of premises and paying rent, but without any form of written lease or licence.

According to the credit insurer, Euler Helmes, there were more insolvencies in construction than in any other sector during the first six months of 2011.

Where an insolvency affects consultants and contractors mid project then clients will be concerned about the possible ramifications for their projects.  What are some of the key considerations for a client in this scenario.

New rules imposing extra regulation on pre-packaged insolvency sales by liquidators and administrators were expected to go live in October, but they will not now come into force before April 2012, according to the Insolvency Service. The delay is apparently due to the continued debate on the proposal for liquidators and administrators to have to give a three day notice period of a proposed sale aimed at giving creditors a chance to "express concerns ... or make a higher offer for the assets".

A clause in a settlement agreement, which provided that an indemnity would cease on a company's insolvency, infringed the anti-deprivation principle as it deprived the insolvent company's administrators of an asset for distribution to creditors. A purported "contracting out" of the insolvency legislation was contrary to public policy and the clause was void (Folgate London Market Ltd v Chaucer Insurance Plc www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/328.html).

The Court of Appeal has confirmed the High Court's decision that the "Balance Sheet Test" (for whether a company is unable to pay its debts under Section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986) cannot be reduced to a single formula or set of principles that apply to all companies.

The Balance Sheet Test forms part of the provisions that regulate when a company may be compulsorily wound up by the Court.

With effect from 6 April 2011, the London Insolvency District (General London County Court) Order 2011 gives the Central London County Court jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases where the bankrupt resides, or carries on business, in the London insolvency district. The High Court used to have jurisdiction over all London's bankruptcy cases.

This was conclusion of the Court in the case of Nicola Jane Haworth v Donna Cartmel and Revenue & Customs Commissioners. The case was an application by Ms Haworth to annul or rescind a bankruptcy order on the grounds that she lacked capacity when a statutory demand and bankruptcy petition were served on her personally.