Directors and Officers (“D&O”) liability policies, like many other liability policies, often have an exclusion that precludes coverage when one insured sues another insured. Coverage, however, can be restored under certain exceptions. One of those exceptions is the bankruptcy exception, which allows a bankruptcy trustee or comparable authority to sue on behalf of the estate against another insured like a director or officer.

Bankruptcy and insurance have been engaged in a tangled web for decades. Claimants against bankrupt insureds are often frustrated in seeking a recovery that they might otherwise obtain if the insured had not gone bankrupt. In a recent case, the Third Circuit addressed the standing of a default judgment creditor claimant to sue the bankrupt insured’s insurance company to recover the default judgment.

The Ministry of Justice is seeking feedback from key stakeholders on the impact of Part 2 of the LAPSO reforms, which abolished the recoverability of success fees under CFAs and after the event insurance premiums.

Until April 2015 insolvency claims were exempt, enabling insolvency practitioners to pursue claims and if successful recover any success fee and more importantly after the event insurance premiums. There was concern at the time, that by abolishing the ability to recover the premium that insolvency claims would be stifled.

A great deal of insolvency litigation is funded by non-parties to a claim – for example, by a creditor or an “after the event” (ATE) insurer. Ordinarily such arrangements and their precise terms are confidential and are not required to be fully disclosed to a counterparty in litigation. In the recent case of Re Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) [2017] EWHC 3465 (ch) (“Hellas”), the court considered the extent to which the underlying details of the litigation funders should be disclosed for the purposes of a security for costs application.

When reviewing a security for costs application under CPR 25.12, the courts are faced with the challenge of striking a balance between an impecunious claimant’s access to justice and the possibility of a successful defendant being unable to recover their costs. This is because the general rule in relation to costs under CPR 44.2 is that the unsuccessful party will pay the costs of the successful party.

Better late than never, the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act of 2010 finally came into force in an amended form on 1 August 2016. It applies across the UK, with minor variances between Scotland and England and Wales. The Act updates third party creditors’ rights against insurers under the 1930 Act of the same name, permitting a streamlined and more cost-efficient procedure for creditors’ claims against insurers in circumstances where the insured company/ individual which took out the liability insurance has suffered an insolvency event.

Historic Position

The Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (“TPR”) will finally come into force on 1 August 2016, making it easier for third parties to bring claims against insurers of insolvent companies.  It has taken more than six years, spread over three separate governments and was amended even before it came into force, but TPR will finally replace the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (the “1930 Act”).

The Background

The decision we've all been waiting for is in -- the U.S.

On 18 November 2009, the Commission approved a restructuring and asset relief package for KBC under the EC State aid rules. KBC is a Belgian integrated banking and insurance group, based primarily in Belgium and Central and Eastern Europe. KBC has received three aid measures to support it during the economic crisis: in December 2008 a recapitalisation of €3.5 billion; in June 2009, a second recapitalisation of €3.5 billion and an asset relief measure on a portfolio of Collateralised Debt Obligations (“CDO”). Approval of these measures was subject to KBC submitting a restructuring plan.