The company voluntary arrangement (CVA) is a relatively obscure insolvency procedure whose use has traditionally been overshadowed by administration. A CVA is essentially a contract between a company and its unsecured creditors which sets out the terms on which the company can continue trading. Implementation of a CVA requires the approval of 75 per cent of creditors by value, who vote on the proposal.

There are two main reasons why CVAs are likely to be used more widely in the future:

An employment appeal tribunal has ruled that TUPE does not apply to all sales by administrators. On this view, whether TUPE applies will depend on the objectives of the administrator when appointed. In this case it was clear from the outset that continuing to trade was not viable and an immediate sale of the company’s assets was required to secure the best outcome for creditors. That put the administration in the category of “terminal” insolvency proceedings, for which a complete exemption from TUPE applies.

Many local authorities are involved in large and expensive projects. It is often the case that costs and timetables for projects will be tight. Therefore any problems that arise on site or with the contractor will have serious consequences for the local authority and its ability to complete the project on time and on budget.

One of the worst headaches a local authority can face during a project is the main building contractor becoming insolvent during the course of a construction project.

A recent court decision has finally clarified the law relating to bankruptcy after the conclusion of ancillary relief proceedings, after a significant period of uncertainty. The Court of Appeal in the case of Haines v Hill has decided that a property transferred to a wife in ancillary relief proceedings should, in the absence of fraud or collusion, remain safe even in the swift event of her former husband’s bankruptcy.

Insolvency of a contractor or a sub-contractor during the course of a building project has the potential to incur other parties involved in the project in considerable costs.

Here are some of the things to bear in mind in case a contractor or sub-contractor becomes insolvent.

There is a prevailing view that landlords have not fared well in recent developments in insolvency law aimed at furthering a culture of corporate rescue. However, landlords should give a broad welcome to a recent case which sought to deal with the complicated question of what expenses should be considered as “expenses of an administration”.

Administrators to the rescue

A fashion retailer in administration had unpaid rates of over £2.6 million across its many outlets. The court was asked to consider whether the administrators were liable to pay the accrued rates as "expenses of the administration", meaning that they would take priority over sums due to other unsecured creditors.

Several tort claims were made against T & N Limited (“the Insured”) arising out of its use of asbestos. As a consequence it became unlikely to be able to pay its debts. Administrators were appointed for the purposes of approving a scheme of arrangement under section 425 of the Companies Act 1985.

Several tort claims were made against T & N Limited (“the Insured”) arising out of its use of asbestos. As a consequence it became unlikely to be able to pay its debts. Administrators were appointed for the purposes of approving a scheme of arrangement under section 425 of the Companies Act 1985.

A new Statement of Insolvency Practice (SIP16) is expected to be published in March 2015, aimed at improving the framework and operation of pre-pack administrations. This follows the Graham Review, and its report published in June 2014. In this article, we explore the existing pre-pack structure, its shortcomings and how the changes expected might affect insolvency practitioners and their insurers.

Background