This article was first published in Building Magazine, Issue 10, 10 March 2017.

Does an adjudication enforcement trump an insolvency moratorium? A recent case in the TCC has provided clear guidance on the issue.

PricewaterhouseCoopers sought to recover their costs in complying with disclosure orders obtained by the Liquidators of Saad Investments Co Ltd and Singularis Holdings Ltd. The disclosure orders were ultimately set aside but the costs appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal of Bermuda.

The Court of Appeal has considered the High Court's previous refusal to lift the automatic stay imposed by Article 20 of the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 ("Model Law").

On 26 August the UK Government announced its intention to introduce radical reforms to insolvency law in the catchily named consultation paper "Insolvency and Corporate Governance – Government Response". Despite the 82 pages, the government kept their cards relatively close to their chest choosing not to reveal their big plans but with suggestions about the reforms ahead to "enable more companies not only to survive, but to thrive".

The Facts

This was an appeal of a decision of Chief Registrar Baister.

Dean and Richard Robbins were directors of a company which entered Creditors Voluntary Liquidation in February 2011. Dean Robbins was the sole shareholder. It appears that the Company had somewhat basic accounting practices and did not keep detailed books and records. It transpired that, prior to entering Liquidation, the Company had paid substantial sums to the Directors in various instalments, which the Liquidators sought to recover under three separate claims.

Following the collapse of Monarch and Air Berlin last year, the International Air Transport Association ("IATA") has suggested that bankruptcy laws should be reviewed globally in order to allow a “reasonable timeframe” for airlines to continue operating after entering insolvency to allow more passengers to complete their journeys.

The High Court considered whether it would be appropriate to approve a scheme of arrangement for a company incorporated in Luxembourg where the company's COMI had been moved to England and there had been a change in the governing law and jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts.

The CJEU reviews the conflicts that arise in the defence provided under Article 13 Regulation No 1346/2000 when Liquidators of an Italian company attempt to set aside payments claimed to otherwise be permissible under English law.

The Appeals process is governed by Rules 12.59; 12.61 and Schedule 11. The old corresponding provisions were Rules 7.47 and 7.49A.

The major change to the provisions is that there is now clarification on appealing decisions made by District Judges. The new rules provide that these appeals will now lie either to a High Court Judge in a District Registry or a Registrar in Bankruptcy at the High Court. This was previously the case, but was only inserted into the old rules by way of an Amendment - they now come fully under the scope of the rules.

This note addresses the changes to CVA's in the Rules.

Consolidation of the Rules

Rule 2.1 to 2.45 are applicable to CVA's (they were formerly found between 1.1 to 1.55 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 ("IR86")). There has been an element of consolidation of IR86 applicable to CVA's and relating to: