A number of headlines following a recent high-profile professional negligence case suggest that there is no duty on a purchaser’s conveyancer to check a seller’s solvency. It is, of course, part of the normal pre-contract searches and enquiries to check on the solvency of the seller, and in the majority of cases, the property solicitor will become aware of the seller’s bankruptcy, as a notice or restriction on the title will show up on the official search of the registered title.
Solvent
As reported in our briefing last week, the European Court of Justice has delivered its judgment in the case of Union of Shop, Distributive & Allied Workers (USDAW) and another v WW Realisation 1 Ltd (in liquidation) and others (C–80/14) in relation to long running claims brought by former employees of national retailers Woolworths and Ethel Austin, which arose out of the administration and closure of all of their retail stores. The ECJ had to consider the meaning of “establishment” in the legislation, which triggers an obligation to undertake collective consultation when an employe
In a High Court decision this week it was held that there is no general duty on a solicitor to check the credit status of the seller in a conveyancing transaction unless expressly instructed.
The judgment also provides a useful analysis of the extent to which a solicitor should advise a client regarding the risks of a particular transaction generally, not just in the context of conveyancing.
Facts
In this two part guide we will be looking at issues that frequently arise when considering whether a professional indemnity policy responds to a claim against a construction professional.
In Part 1 we consider whether there is cover. In particular:
- Prior claims – when will a “new” claim fall within an existing notification?
- The obligation to notify circumstances
- Aggregation
- Insolvency of the Insured
Prior claims
The Fifth Circuit recently dealt with the interplay of bankruptcy and oil and gas liens in the case of In Re: T.S.C. Seiber Services, L.C., decided November 3, 2014.
The Supreme Court has recently declined to hear retailer Game’s appeal, ruling that there was no arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered, particularly bearing in mind the case had already been the subject of judicial decision and reviewed on appeal.
“… permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court…”
Earlier this year, the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) published its consultation on the second PPF Levy Triennium (2015/16 to 2017/18) which proposed wholesale changes to the measure of insolvency risk and significant changes in respect of contingent assets and the PPF’s treatment of asset-backed contributions.
As we await the outcome of the consultation, employers and trustees may find a summary of the proposals helpful in trying to gauge how they could impact their scheme’s PPF levy.
The PPF-specific insolvency risk model
On 27 June 2014, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales sanctioned the solvent scheme of arrangement made by J.K. Buckenham Limited and its Scheme Creditors pursuant to Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 which was voted on and approved by the Scheme Creditors during the meeting held on 4 June 2014. A copy of the Order sanctioning the Scheme was delivered to the Registrar of Companies on 30 June 2014, and the Scheme became effective on that date.
On 16 April 2014 we assisted J.K. Buckenham Limited (JKB) in successfully obtaining the court’s leave to convene a meeting of its creditors, a meeting at which JKB will ask such creditors to consider and to vote on a scheme of arrangement under the Companies Act 2006 (the Scheme). JKB is promoting the Scheme as part of a wider solution to end its broking obligations, release trapped cash, relinquish its FCA permissions, and ultimately liquidate.
THE SCHEME
Following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Game it is necessary to consider the effect of the court’s decision on the treatment of rents in administration and by analogy liquidation – and the potential consequences of that change.
What types of insolvency does the decision affect?
The Court of Appeal’s decision explicitly states that it is applicable as to the treatment of rents in both administration and liquidation.
What about existing cases?