In recent months certain restructuring processes have gained quite some notoriety in press headlines in connection with a number of UK businesses. This article provides secured lenders with a brief recap on the key points to note in relation to CVAs (Company Voluntary Arrangements) and what Liquidation means in the context of Carillion.

Retail CVAs

The compulsory liquidation of Carillion is likely to have a wide ranging effect on the construction industry in the UK. The impact may well be felt by other contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers as well as engaged professionals such as architects, engineers and project managers. The insolvency may give rise to calls on bonds or guarantees and affect insurance arrangements.

In this bulletin we summarise what has happened and offer immediate advice.

Despite the Treasury’s comparison of independent forecasts for the UK economy showing an overall upturn for January 2018, there appears to be a nasty outbreak of bad weather looming. Close on the heels of the reported financial woes of Toys R Us and House of Fraser comes the news of the fashion retailer New Look and now, massively, Carillion.

Following recent media reports, with effect from Monday 15 January 2018 the Official Receiver has been appointed liquidator of a number of Carillion Group companies (Carillion Plc, Carillion Construction Limited, Carillion Services Limited, Planned Maintenance Engineering Limited, Carillion Integrated Services Limited and Carillion Services 2006 Limited). The Official Receiver will be supported by a number of Special Managers from PwC.

Background

Urbisity Ltd (the “Company”) was a developer of up market apartments. The Company funded its developments through various loans and its two directors, Nicholas Mullen (“NM”) and Christopher White (“CW”) acted as guarantors. Following the credit crunch, sales waned and, without substantial equity, the Company began selling property it owned and borrowing money from family members, one of which was NM’s father, Francis Mullen (“FM”).

This article was first published for Thomson Reuters' Practical Law Dispute Resolution Blog.

ADVISORY | DISPUTES | TRANSACTIONS Restructuring and insolvency roundup January 2018 In this roundup, we consider four cases with implications for all those involved in the restructuring and insolvency sector. This edition includes an article on crowdfunding, a sector which continues to be of interest to practitioners giving the changing regulatory landscape and the risk to investors. Other cases include two Court of Appeal decisions and cover privilege in bankruptcy, the adequacy of ATE policies, and the requirement for boards to be quorate when directors appoint administrators.

Key points

• Once clear that an action is improperly constituted, it should not be allowed to proceed.

• Those in control of a company have the duty to manage that company in accordance with its constitution.

The Facts

Key points

• Failure to comply with sections 333 and 363 of the Insolvency Act constitutes contempt of court for which a committal order may be obtained.

• A trustee in bankruptcy should not usually require permission to apply for a committal order.

• Correct procedure for application confirmed by the court.

The recent decision in Leeds v Lemos may create significant problems for Trustees in Bankruptcy as they attempt to fulfil their duty of realising a Bankrupt’s estate for the benefit of his creditors.

The case centred on the wish of the Trustee in Bankruptcy to rely on documents that the Bankrupt (and some third parties) claimed were privileged. The Trustee in Bankruptcy therefore asked the Court to compel the Bankrupt to waive privilege, so that the documents could be referred to in legal proceedings..