When considering whether or not to bring a legal action, it is important to establish if it is competent and commercially worthwhile to do so. The ability to bring, or continue with, legal proceedings against a company can be restricted if that company enters into a formal insolvency process. The position of creditors may be improved now that the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 has at last been brought into force.

The insolvency of Hanjin Shipping (Hanjin), the world's seventh largest container line, is likely to have a significant impact throughout the maritime sector. In this briefing we provide an overview of some of the potential consequences of Hanjin's insolvency and which parties will be most affected by this development.

Background

At first glance, it seems that cross-border insolvencies between the UK and EU are likely to become more time-consuming, complex and expensive post-Brexit. However, the situation may not be as dire as it first appears due to the existence of alternative legislation and the exemptions to the EU legislation. As with other areas of law, when it comes to insolvencies much will depend on what steps are taken to maintain the current arrangements with the EU or whether they fall away altogether.

Bankruptcy made clearer: One of the bastions of old-style Scots terminology, guaranteed to perplex Southern audiences, is the law of bankruptcy in Scotland as it applies to individuals and assorted others.

But maybe for no longer. The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 has reached the statute book. It’s a consolidating act, encompassing statutes from 1985, 1993, 2002, 2007, 2012 and 2014. It introduces a new and fairly modern framework, the aim being to make it less cumbersome and easier to use by those who do not have intimate knowledge of it (most of us!).

Le 1^er septembre 2016 la compagnie Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (“Hanjin”) première compagnie coréenne de transport maritime par conteneur a sollicité la protection de la loi coréenne sur les faillites et une procédure collective, dite de “réhabilitation”, a été ouverte par les tribunaux de Séoul.

In the recent judgment of Gorbunova v The Estate of Boris Berezovsky (deceased) and others¹ the High Court has provided useful guidance as to when summary judgment is appropriate in deciding whether a trust was established.

This article was first published in Getting the Deal Through - Ship Finance: Updates and Trends and is reproduced with permission.

The terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will inevitably dictate the extent to which Brexit impacts upon financial agreements. As this stage, it is important to consider the clauses which may have to be reviewed.

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.

The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 (the “Act”) received Royal Assent on 28 April 2016 and is expected to come into force by the end of the year.

The Act is only the second piece of primary consolidation legislation to have passed through the Scottish Parliament and brings together the various laws on personal insolvency into a single piece of legislation.

At the moment, the law is rather unwieldy and difficult to follow in practice.