Fulltext Search

The Court of Appeal overturns the High Court decision concerning an ATE insurance policy lacking anti-avoidance provisions as adequate security for costs.

Case Alert - [2017] EWCA Civ 1872

Court of Appeal orders security for costs where ATE insurance policy did not contain an anti-avoidance provision

Court of Appeal sets out test for whether defendant has assets for a freezing order application and considers the impact of delay in applying

High Court holds that an Insolvency Exclusion applies in respect of a claim under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (“1930 Act”) and awards summary judgment accordingly but declines to provide much-needed guidance on insurers’ liability in the case of claims partially settled by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (“FSCS”).

On September 1, 2017, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Federal Reserve) adopted a rule (the Rule)1 that will require global systemically important U.S. bank holding companies (U.S. GSIBs)2 and most of their subsidiaries to amend a range of derivatives, short-term funding transactions, securities lending transactions and other qualifying financial contracts (QFCs). The required amendments will limit counterparty termination rights related to certain U.S. GSIB resolution and bankruptcy proceedings.

Case Alert ‐ [2017] EWHC 2597 (Comm)

Court confirms insurance policy exclusions are not construed narrowly/scope of an insolvency clause

The claimants brought a claim under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 against the professional indemnity insurers of their financial adviser. The adviser gave allegedly negligent investment advice in respect of bonds issued by a company which then went into liquidation (and so defaulted on payments due to the claimants).

Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council: Supreme Court again considers the nature of the relationship required to find a defendant vicariously liable

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/60.html

On September 21, 2017, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the Court) held, over the objection of Ultra Petroleum Corp.

Written by Ashmi Mohan at Clasis Law

In its recent judgment of Kirusa Software Private Ltd. vs. Mobilox Innovations Private Ltd. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 6 of 2017, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal of India (“Appellate Tribunal”) has adjudicated upon the issue as to what does “dispute” and “existence of dispute” mean for the purpose of determination of a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).

On June 26, 2017, the recast EU regulation on insolvency proceedings1 (the Recast Insolvency Regulation) came into force.

Existing Legislation