• Corporate collapse and the reform of boardroom structures - lessons from America?

      Griffin, Stephen (Sweet & Maxwell, 2003)
      Comments on the events leading to the collapse of the Enron corporation in the US. Highlights the responsibility for Enron's demise, focusing on the role of the auditors, the board and senior management. Examines key provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002, passed as a direct response to Enron, including the prohibitions on corporate activity, the regulation of auditors and the imposition of criminal penalties. Discusses the UK's response to the corporate scandals in the US, reviewing proposed reforms in the Higgs report relating to boardroom structures and the role of non-executive directors, and the scope of the revised Code on Corporate Governance, published in July 2003.
    • Curtailing the use of multiple Notices of Intention to Appoint Administrators: the case for a moratorium?

      Umfreville, Christopher (Thomson Reuters, 2017-07-31)
      Considers the implications of the ruling in JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Ltd v Davis Haulage Ltd (CA (Civ Div)) that an insolvent company must show that it has a settled intention to appoint an administrator before it may file a notice of intention under the Insolvency Act 1986 Sch.B1 para.26 and trigger a 10-day interim moratorium under para.44.
    • Extinguishing the Flames of the Phoenix Company

      Griffin, Stephen (Oxford University Press, 2002)
      Considers the legal regulation of phoenix companies. Discusses: (1) the definition of a phoenix company; (2) the scope of the Insolvency Act 1986 s.216; (3) exemptions to the incursion of liability under s.216; and (4) reforms suggested in the Final Report of the Company Law Steering Group.
    • Insolvency and resolution of construction contract disputes by adjudication in the UK construction industry

      Ndekugri, Issaka E.; Russell, Victoria (Taylor & Francis, 2005)
      The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 provides that a party to a construction contract has a right, at any time, to refer any dispute under the contract for adjudication. This resolution method requires a neutral third party, the adjudicator, to determine the dispute within 28 days after receipt of the referral regardless of the complexity of the issues in dispute. The decision is to be implemented even if it is palpably wrong in fact or law. A key assumption of this legislation is that any mistakes made by an adjudicator can be corrected by reference of the same to litigation or arbitration. It is a major concern that restoration of the parties to their correct positions may become impossible where, after implementation of an adjudicator's mistaken decision, the beneficiary of the decision becomes insolvent. This article is a critical review of all the cases in which the courts have dealt with the effect of insolvency on the right to adjudicate and the enforceability of adjudicators' decisions. Two main conclusions are derived from the review. First, the court may decline to enforce an adjudicator's payment decision where there is strong evidence that, on account of formal insolvency, the payee would be unable to make repayment if final resolution of the dispute necessitates it. Second, the only exception so far to the general right to refer to adjudication arises where the other party is in administration. (Taylor & Francis)
    • It’s Officialism - the uncertain past, present and future of the Insolvency Practitioner Profession in the United Kingdom

      Walton, Peter (Lexis Nexis, 2017)
      One of the largely unheralded battles in the world of insolvency law has been the debate, which has come and gone over a two hundred year period, as to whether, and to what extent, the State should be involved in the administration of insolvent estates. It has long been recognised that insolvency law does not just involve debtors and creditors. The State has a crucial interest in ensuring that insolvent estates are administered effectively and that culpable behaviour is investigated with appropriate remedies and sanctions being applied against wrongdoers.
    • 'Mora' the same: reflecting on the latest attempts to salvage company rescue

      Umfreville, Christopher (International Company and Commercial Law Review, 2017-11-01)
      In May 2016 the UK Government proposed the introduction of a new pre-insolvency moratorium for distressed companies. This article considers these proposals, alongside other reforms put forward over the last decade, concluding that the existing provisions could be utilised more effectively to achieve the apparent objectives and promote company rescue.
    • Pre-packaged Administrations - Trick or Treat?

      Walton, Peter (Sweet and Maxwell Ltd., 2006)
      Discusses how the US idea of pre-packaged, or execution only, administration has been approached in the UK, involving deals that have already been agreed before a company enters administration. Comments on the use of pre-packs in the US. Explores the use of pre-packs in the UK and the possible grounds for challenging their existence, focusing on: (1) whether the Insolvency Act 1986 permits pre-packed administration; (2) the possibility that pre-packs may cause administrators to act in breach of duties, including statutory duties and conflict of interest issues; and (3) whether fees for pre-administration work could be claimed as expenses of the administration. (Legal Journals Index)
    • The Disqualification of Unfit Directors and the Protection of the Public Interest

      Griffin, Stephen (SLS Legal Publications, 2002)
      Criticises effectiveness of disqualification process under s.6 of 1986 Act, calling for broader interpretation of unfit conduct, higher standard of culpability, tougher penalties for breaches and expanded disqualification procedures.