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.
In the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling that an insolvent company can adjudicate, the TCC have confirmed that there remain high hurdles to the insolvent party enforcing any adjudication decision.
You must have been in isolation if you haven’t heard or read about the Supreme Court’s decision in Bresco v Lonsdale. It has been hailed by some as opening the floodgates to adjudications by insolvent companies. But as a series of recent judgments show, there remain a number of obstacles that will need to be overcome by insolvent entities seeking to enforce an adjudication award.
The background
A creditor with assets in England should refrain from involvement in a foreign insolvency proceeding if it is at risk of being sued in the foreign court.
Before the recent decision in Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and others and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (In liq) and another v AE Grant [2012] UKSC 46 (the joint appeal of two earlier cases) (the Rubin/New Cap Appeal), an insolvency judgment obtained in an Australian court could be enforced in the UK despite falling outside of the traditional common law enforceability rules.
The Rubin/New Cap Appeal has now removed this special treatment afforded to foreign insolvency judgments and the old common law rules once again apply.
Last week, one of the largest tour operators and package tour operators in the world shut down – Thomas Cook. On September 23, 2019, the UK Supreme Court appointed an Official Receiver, a figure similar to the insolvency receiver in Bulgaria, who takes over the “management” of dozens of Thomas Cook Group companies and appoints consulting firms AlixPartners and KPMG to support the process.
If 2016 ended with more questions than answers as to how Brexit would take shape, 2017 began with at least a little more clarity.
Europe has struggled mightily during the last several years to triage a long series of critical blows to the economies of the 27 countries that comprise the European Union, as well as the
collective viability of eurozone economies. Here we provide a snapshot of some recent developments relating to insolvency and restructuring in the EU.
PwC, the administrators in the Lehman Brothers administration in the UK, have made several applications to the Court seeking directions on their approach to the distribution of clients’ money and assets. On 29 February 2012 the Supreme Court gave judgment on issues that are central to the interpretation and application of the rules for the protection of client money made by the Financial Services Authority. The issues raised are ones that have divided judicial opinion.
Like many legal tests, the test for insolvency is easy to state, but hard to apply in practice.
The United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC)1 has recently issued an important clarification, which confirms that an element of forwards projection must be applied – extending in extreme cases to assessments of balance-sheet as well as cash-flow solvency.
This liberal approach is likely to be followed in New Zealand, despite differences in statutory wording.