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

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.

La Cassazione 20 aprile 2017, n. 9983 conferma un proprio precedente secondo cui la banca può essere ritenuta responsabile per concorso nell’illecito, distinguendo la fattispecie da quella della concessione abusiva di credito

The Court of Cassation with the decision of 3 April 2017, No. 8632 ruled that the confirmation order of the Bankruptcy Court can be appealed, even when there were no oppositions to confirmation, if the Court unilaterally amended the proposal approved by the creditors

By a decree of the Italian Ministry of Economic Development (MISE) on 2 May 2017 the extraordinary administration procedure set forth by legislative decree No. 347/2003 (“Legge Marzano”) was started for Alitalia Società Aerea Italiana S.p.A., which has also been declared insolvent by the Court of Civitavecchia on 11 May 2017

Con decreto del Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico (MISE) del 2 maggio 2017 è stata disposta la procedura di amministrazione straordinaria di Alitalia Società Aerea Italiana S.p.A. ai sensi del d.l. n. 347/2003 (c.d. legge Marzano) e con sentenza del Tribunale di Civitavecchia dell’11 maggio 2017 è stato dichiarato lo stato di insolvenza

La Cassazione 3 aprile 2017, n. 8632 ha stabilito che il decreto di omologazione può essere reclamato, anche in assenza di opposizioni, in relazione ad addizioni estranee alla proposta introdotte d’imperio dal Tribunale, che non rappresentino semplici formule organizzative della fase di esecuzione del concordato