Major changes to bankruptcy rules that govern the administration of consumer bankruptcy cases, and Chapter 13 cases in particular, were recently approved by the Supreme Court and transmitted to Congress.1 After several years of drafting and debate by the rules committee, these rule amendments will become effective December 1, 2017.

Introduction

In the recent case of BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland [2017] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court unanimously re-affirmed and clarified the principle established by the House of Lords in South Australian Asset Management Corporation v York Montague [1996] UKHL 10 (the “SAAMCO principle”). This article explains the clarification and the practical consequences it has for those seeking professional advice.

The SAAMCO principle

LBI EHF (in winding up) v. Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG and Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2017] EWHC 522 (Comm)

Summer 2017

Editor: Melanie Willems

IN THIS ISSUE

You Swynson, you lose some

by Robert Blackett 03

10

14

The rule of English law - why Brexit, however blindly foolish it

is, should not matter for arbitration

by Melanie Willems

Unintended consequences - be clear what you advise on

by Ryan Deane

T H E A R B I T E R [ S E A S O N ] 2 0 1 7 2

T H E A R B I T E R S U M M E R 2 0 1 7 3

You Swynson, you lose

some

by Robert Blacke

Lowick Rose LLP (in liquidaon) v Swynson

A case decided last week by the Sixth Circuit illustrates the importance of seeking bankruptcy claim policy amendments when placing D&O coverage. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Zucker (6th Cir. Jun. 20, 2017) involved the application of the insured-vs.-insured exclusion and specifically, whether the policy’s insured-vs.-insured exclusion precluded coverage for a claim brought by a company’s liquidating trust, to which the company’s claims had been assigned by the company as debtor-in-possession after the company filed for bankruptcy.

"The Parent Bank entered into this insurance contract with its eyes wide open and its wallet on its mind."

The Supreme Court of the United States inMidland v. Johnson reversed the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and held that a debt collector that files a proof of claim for debt that is barred by the applicable statute of limitations does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) if the face of the proof of claim makes clear that the statute of limitations has run. The Supreme Court refused to accept the debtor's argument that Midland's proof of claim was "false, deceptive, or misleading" under the FDCPA.

Ministerial Decisions

Issuing the Executive Regulations of Sultani Decree No. 31/96 on determining the rules for investing the funds of the Public Authority for Social Insurance and pension funds.

A list of the state pension funds to which these regulations apply is given in Article 2 of this decision.

Issued on 13 June 2017. Effective from the day after the publication date.

Issuing the licensing and working system at the site of the customs territory in the Special Economic Zone at Duqm.

Ministerial Decisions

Ministry of Manpower

Ministerial Decision No. 187/2017

Continuing the suspension of permits for the temporary recruitment of non-Omani manpower in certain professions. Permits are to be suspended for salesmen/marketing professionals and purchasing representatives, as specified in MD 608/2013 and MD 381/2016. The suspension period is to be extended by a further 6 months with effect from 1 June.

Issued on 29 May 2017.

Ministerial Decision No. 188/2017

Legal Developments

Potential hourly wage system

The Ministry of Labor and Social Development (MOL) is discussing a potential new employment system for Saudi employees named “Flexible Work” (Flexible Work). Flexible Work will be a system whereby an employee may be paid an hourly wage on a weekly basis in arrears, and various entitlements currently required under the Labor Law for conventional employees would not be required, such as: