In the week that Leicester City overcame odds of 5000/1 to be crowned Premier League champions, the insurance market was (almost) as astounded at the news that the long-awaited Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010, which received Royal Assent on 25 March 2010, will be coming into force on 1 August 2016.

Recent developments in landlord and tenant law concerning the position of the outgoing tenant’s guarantor on the assignment of the lease can only be described as ‘bonkers’. A few years ago, the Good Harvest and House of Fraser cases confirmed that a parent company could not guarantee both of its subsidiaries on an intra-group assignment. Last month, in the EMI case, the High Court has confirmed that the assignment of a lease to the tenant’s guarantor is similarly void.

Happy anniversary

Draft regulations were laid before Parliament on 25 February 2016 to amend the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010

The Act, when it comes into force, will make it more straightforward for claimants to cut through directly to insurers when policyholders become insolvent. It has been six years since the Act was passed. These proposed amendments are another step on what has been a slow road towards bringing the Act into force.

1 hilldickinson.com Pricing Defended claims Enforcement Insolvency Key contacts Commercial Recovery proceedings debt recovery 2016 2 Outstanding debt, irrespective of its amount, is detrimental to operations. For large organisations, unpaid monies add up and can considerably reduce real profit. For a small to medium-sized enterprise, a reduction in liquid assets may critically affect its ability to survive. Recovering debts has a significant and positive impact on a business.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a noteworthy opinion for those whose work involves real estate mortgage conduit trusts (REMIC trusts) or utilization of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions. In In re MCK Millennium Ctr. Parking, LLC,¹ Bankruptcy Judge Jacqueline P.

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi recently ruled in the Energy Future Holdings case¹ that the debtor will not be required to pay the $431 million “make whole” demanded by bondholders upon the debtor’s early payment of the bonds.²

In what may become viewed as the de facto standard for selling customer information in bankruptcies, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved, on May 20, 2015, a multi-party agreement that would substantially limit RadioShack’s ability to sell 117 million customer records.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif confirms the long-held and common sense belief that “knowing and voluntary consent” is the key to the exercise of judicial authority by a bankruptcy court judge.1 In short, the Supreme Court held that a litigant in a bankruptcy court can consent—expressly or impliedly through waiver—to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of claims that the bankruptcy court otherwise lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.

On May 6, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether so-called“Deprizio waivers,”¹ where an insider guarantor waives indemnification rights against a debtor, can insulate the guarantor from preference liability arising from payments made by the obligor to the lender. The Ninth Circuit held that if such a waiver is made legitimately—not merely to avoid preference liability—then the guarantor is not a “creditor” and cannot be subject to preference liability.

In In re Filene’s Basement, LLC,¹ the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware considered the rejection damages a landlord claimant was entitled to pursuant to Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code after the debtor rejected its lease as part of its reorganization plan.