Termination, rights to withhold payment and withholding notices under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 Under the JCT suite of contracts, an employer is entitled to terminate the contractor’s employment where the contractor has become insolvent (including the appointment of administrative receivers in relation to the contractor). If an employer exercises this right of termination, the JCT provisions set out the resulting financial consequences.

In proceedings commenced by the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the UK High Court ruled in December 2004 that Adrian Sam & Co (ASC) and John Martin, one of ASC’s two partners, were knowingly involved in the UK activities of an illegal overseas investment firm (a boiler room) and they were ordered to pay £360,000 (approximately $700,000) to 63 investors involved in the boiler room scam. A bankruptcy order was granted against John Martin in August 2006.

In a recent decision issued by Lord Drummond Young, one of the Scottish insolvency judges in the Court of Session, useful guidance has been issued which will be of interest to practitioners having to deal with the, not uncommon, situation of a retiring practitioner and replacement with a current partner in the same firm.

A recent decision from the High Court has shed some light on the remedies available to landlords under insolvency legislation against tenants who enter into administration. The decision provides useful guidance on the ability of a landlord to exercise its right of forfeiture.

On 2 May 2007 the House of Lords ruled that the mere appointment of a receiver was not enough for a company to recover damages for business contracts that were allegedly lost as a result of that appointment.

In a decision that will have important repercussions for creditors with the benefit of guarantees, the High Court this week has held that a company in financial difficulties may not propose a voluntary arrangement which is unfairly prejudicial on its terms to certain creditors.

Re Powerhouse

The Powerhouse CVA, which sought to strip away guarantees provided by the parent company to landlords of Powerhouse, has been struck down as unfairly prejudicial by the High Court. However, certain aspects of the judgement remain unclear and could be subject to future appeal…

BACKGROUND TO THE POWERHOUSE CVA

Powerhouse (an electrical retailer) proposed a CVA on 1 February 2006 with the intention of closing 35 of its stores (the Closed Premises).

The bank took a charge on the borrowers’ property. In January 1992, it demanded payment of the balance due under the secured facilities. In June 1992, it made a further formal demand specifically relying on the mortgage. One of the borrowers was subsequently made bankrupt. Periodically, the bank informed the borrowers that they continued to be liable and made demands for payment and referred to the mortgage.

The claimant obtained a judgment against the defendant for breach of a guarantee. The defendant entered into an IVA with his creditors, which included his liability to the claimant. The defendant paid the judgment sum to the claimant, but not the interest awarded on it. The claimant contended that the award of interest was a post-IVA claim, and threatened to bankrupt the defendant which would lead to a termination of the IVA. The defendant applied for a stay of execution of the interest part of the judgment, on the ground that it was within the IVA.

Although this case is about a trustee in bankruptcy’s fight to realise his interest in a property by virtue of a debtor’s bankruptcy, the facts (though extreme) are not untypical of a finance company’s position when a hirer refuses to return goods to it despite the fact the court has ordered the hirer to do so.

In this case Mr Canty was made bankrupt in relation to a relatively small debt and he never accepted the position. There followed a number of appeals and challenges over the following years in which he attempted to reopen and relitigate earlier proceedings.