Following three profit warnings in recent months, the collapse of Carillion under a mountain of debt could hardly be described as a surprise. The fact that Carillion has entered compulsory liquidation may raise eyebrows. Administration would have allowed the company to continue operating whilst buyers were sought for those parts of the business that remained viable; liquidation is an acknowledgement that, by the time it collapsed, Carillion simply had no assets to sell that anyone would have been interested in buying. All that was left were the contracts.

The Facts

The latest decision in the Shlosberg saga that has turned the issue of privilege and use of documents on its head - this time considering the practical implications of how office holders can use information they have obtained by compulsion for the purposes of their investigations.

The Facts

Stevensdrake Limited, a law firm, made a claim against a Liquidator for fees owing under a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) made between the two on 10 April 2008. The parties had worked together on various insolvency matters for many years.

At just before 7.00am on Monday 15 January 2018 following an urgent telephone hearing, a High Court Judge agreed to place six of the Carillion Group companies into compulsory liquidation and appoint the Official Receiver as Liquidator. At the same time, six partners of PwC were appointed as Special Managers to assist the Liquidators.

It is fair to say that the insolvency of Carillion has sent shockwaves through the construction industry. While this may be the catalyst for change, insolvency has unfortunately been a risk which has been realised all too often. Looking at the current position, we set out the top ten issues that employers, professionals and the supply chain should consider in the event of main contractor insolvency.

In light of the business news over the last year, including the most current news of Carillion, it is important to know how business failure impacts on employment rights.

Summary: This Expert Insight looks at the case of Ziggurat (Claremont Place) v HCC International Insurance Company PLC [2017] and considers the implications of the case for the surety industry generally, particularly in the context of construction insolvency.

Since the case of Perar BV v. General Surety and Guarantee in 1994, there has been some confusion and misunderstanding as to the implications of this case and whether insolvency amounts to a breach of contract, or more importantly, if it needs to be, when claiming on a performance bond.

This was recently discussed in the case of Ziggurat (Claremont Place) LLP v HCC International Company Plc just before Christmas.

Background

English courts recognise that shareholders hold a separate legal personality from the body corporate they own a stake in and will only go behind the corporate veil in limited circumstances. In the recent case of Onur Air Taşimacilik AŞ v Goldtrail Travel Ltd (In Liquidation) 1 , the Court of Appeal considered whether the financial means of the appellant’s wealthy controlling shareholder could be taken into account when making an order that the appellant had to make a substantial payment into court as a condition of being able to pursue its appeal.

The collapse of Carillion, plus the publication of the National Audit Office’s (NAO) timely and perceptive report (www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/PFI-and-PF2.pdf) on private finance initiatives (PFI) and Private Finance 2 (PF2), has sparked renewed public focus on the impact of such events on government finances. This has led to some scaremongering from the media:

‘PFI deals costing taxpayers billions.’ BBC, January 18