Most trading contracts contain specific terms setting out the consequences of a counterparty insolvency or other default. This article explores whether, and in what circumstances, it may be sensible to invoke rights under such clauses or whether it can be better to adopt a more “wait and see” attitude. We also look at drafting options prior to finalising contract terms.
When considering how to respond to a counterparty event of default (EOD), relevant considerations will include potential consequences:
In the recent case of Greece v Stroumpoulis on 25 February 2016, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided that EU protections under the Insolvency Directive apply to EU residents working in the EU, regardless of whether their employer is an EU company. The ECJ reached this decision based on the social objective of the Insolvency Directive, irrespective of the maritime waters on which the vessel sailed.
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.
The true effects of the events of the last few days have yet to be seen. With the mainstream political parties acting like participants in a ‘Compose a Greek Tragedy’ competition, a government unlikely to exercise any meaningful executive functions until autumn (at least), the currency and financial markets in turmoil and the future uncertain on a range of factors, it is tempting to succumb to a condition of inaction whilst waiting to see how the cards fall.
First published in the International Arbitration 1/3LY, Issue 7
Insolvency law contains summary processes for dealing with claims and protections against certain proceedings commencing or continuing. There has been some debate, and recent case law, concerning the primacy of these rules over agreements to arbitrate. In the following article, we look at what the current position is under English law and beyond.
General position under English law
The current litigation landscape for professionals in Hong Kong is relatively benign: but is this the lull before the storm? Accurate records are kept of all actions commenced in the Hong Kong High Court, which deals with claims of over HK$1 million. The graph above shows the number of claims begun by writ each year over the last 15 years. This data covers all claims, not just those against professionals, but gives an indication of the general litigation trends.
On 27 May 2016, South Korea's STX Offshore & Shipbuilding Co. ("STX OS"), once the country's fourth-largest shipbuilding firm by revenue, filed for court-supervised rehabilitation, in the Seoul Central District Court.
FI and D&O Since our last update, there have been significant developments in the FI and D&O landscape. November saw the first ever UK deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) announced between the SFO and Standard Bank. The DPA process has been available but unused since 2014 so the judgment and the SFO’s comments thereafter provided some much needed guidance on what the process involved. Significantly, weight was placed on Standard Bank’s early self-reporting and cooperation.
The Act, which received Royal Assent as long ago as 25 March 2010, is finally due to come into force on 1 August 2016. It has the intention of allowing third parties to make claims directly against liability insurers in insolvency situations.
1930 Act
On 28 April 2016, the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (Commencement) Order 2016 was made. It provides for the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the New Act) to come into force on 1 August 2016.