In UKCloud Ltd(Re Insolvency Act 1986) [2024] EWHC 1259 (Ch), the court was again faced with the age-old question of categorisation of a security interest but this time in respect of a new type of asset, internet protocol (IP) addresses. Could fixed charge security be taken over IP addresses and, if so, was it taken here?

The recent case of Re VE Global UK Ltd (In Administration) [2024] EWHC 749 (Ch) is a useful reminder to practitioners and lenders alike of the importance of correctly identifying documents which create security interests, analysing them to determine whether such security interest is required to be presented for registration at Companies House and ensuring that all registration steps in respect of such interests are completed within the required 21 day time period.

Legal opinions can be complex, and certain areas require the provision of reasoning to support the opining firm’s conclusion. Parties should discuss and agree the scope of legal opinions as early as possible within the life cycle of a deal. This article discusses some common areas for consideration.

WHAT IS A LEGAL OPINION AND WHY IS IT USED?

Legal opinions are formal letters typically provided to confirm a specified legal position in relation to a document or a suite of transaction documents.

For example, a firm practising English law may be asked to opine on whether:

In June 2019 the Government announced a plan to introduce a new “breathing space” scheme to protect individuals and families struggling with problem debt and to give those individuals and families extra help and time to get their finances under control.

In Berryman v Zurich Australia Ltd [2016] WASC 196 it was decided that a bankrupt's entitlement to claim a TPD benefit under a life insurance policy is not an entitlement that is divisible amongst the bankrupt's creditors, and therefore such an entitlement does not vest in the Official Trustee in bankruptcy. Tottle J of the Supreme Court of Western Australia ruled that the bankrupt insured could continue an action in his own name to recover the TPD benefit. Life insurers may need to adjust their claims' payment practices in light of the Berryman decision.