In Australia, s 436A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) provides for the circumstances in which a company may appoint a voluntary administrator. This provision requires the company’s board to resolve that: (a) in the opinion of the directors voting for the resolution, the company is insolvent, or is likely to become insolvent at some future time; and (b) an administrator of the company should be appointed.

The use of a company name which is the same or similar to the name of an insolvent company is fraught with complications. 

Were you at any stage involved in a company which went into liquidation or administration? Are you now involved in another business with the same or a similar name? If so, you could inadvertently have fallen foul of the criminal and civil liability under Section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Joseph Miller explains the pitfalls of this complicated and often overlooked area of insolvency law.

According to press reports, utilities contractor NMCN (formerly North Midland Construction) plc and its subsidiary NMCN Sustainable Solutions Limited, have gone into administration.

Administration is the procedure by which a company that is, or is likely to become, insolvent can be reorganised or have its assets realised for the benefit of creditors. The primary aim of an administration is to rescue the company so that it can continue to trade as a going concern. If this is not possible, a company may go into administration for two other purposes:

Judgment was given by the Court of Appeal yesterday (7th October) in John Doyle Construction Limited (In Liquidation) v Erith Contractors Limited. This important case considered the relationship between adjudication and insolvency proceedings in the context of applications to enforce an adjudicator's decision. The underlying contract between JDC and Erith had related to hard landscaping works at the London Olympic park in Stratford.

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

Any funder offering invoice finance facilities in the UK whose borrowers have (or may in the future have) debtors with a Scottish connection should be aware of the different rules applicable to invoice finance in Scotland.  

Scots law is less user-friendly to invoice financiers than English law, and the following is a brief, high level guide to some of the key issues to consider in invoice finance transactions which involve Scottish debts or debtors.

When is Scots law relevant?

The UK government has lifted the current restrictions on statutory demands but imposed new temporary requirements for winding-up petitions presented from 1 October 2021 until 31 March 2022. The measures aim to protect companies from aggressive creditor enforcement as the economy opens up and other protections are lifted.

New requirements

Click here to watch the video.

Jurisdictions across the globe have sought to expand their restructuring toolkits – spurred on by Governments seeking to support business during the pandemic. This has had a significant impact on the options available when restructuring business in Asia Pacific.

The consequent distress in the market is evident with 9 supplier insolvencies in the last few weeks alone, including Avro Energy, Utility Point and People’s Energy.

Today, 1 October 2021, is important as Ofgem is due to increase tariff caps from that date. This is also the date when the restrictions on petitioning for the winding up of companies on the basis of insolvency will be eased.

Legal landscape – energy regulations

In distressed situations, there are a number of issues to navigate, including:

On 29 September 2021, the English High Court rejected a challenge in respect of Caff Nero's company voluntary arrangement ("CVA"), brought by a landlord on the grounds of material irregularity and unfair prejudice. The single disgruntled landlord, with the backing of the EG Group ("EG") (who were interested in acquiring Caff Nero), argued that the directors of the company and the CVA nominees breached their respective duties in refusing to adjourn or postpone the electronic voting process to vote on the CVA, after EG had submitted an eleventh-hour offer for Caff Nero.