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
Under § 727(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, a court shall not grant a debtor’s discharge if “the debtor has concealed, destroyed, mutilated, falsified, or failed to keep or preserve any recorded information, including books, documents, records, and papers, from which the debtor’s financial condition or business transactions might be ascertained, unless such act or failure to act was justified under all of the circumstances of the case.” To prevail under § 727(a)(3) an objecting party must establish that the debtor has failed to maintain or preserve records.
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”).
The Eleventh Circuit has revisited the question of when a debtor may be judicially estopped from pursuing a civil lawsuit due to his or her failure to disclose the claims forming the basis of the lawsuit in their bankruptcy. Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine intended to protect courts against parties who seek to manipulate the judicial process by changing their legal positions to suit the exigencies of the moment.
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
Last year, Burr & Forman lawyers won a decisive victory in the Eleventh Circuit, in the case of In re Failla, 838 F.3d 1170 (11th Cir. 2016). In Failla, the Eleventh Circuit held that a debtor who files a statement of intention to “surrender” his or her house in bankruptcy may not oppose the secured creditor’s foreclosure proceeding in state court. Failla is a significant victory for secured creditors for two primary reasons. First, the Eleventh Circuit interpreted the meaning of “surrender,” as used in 11 U.S.C.
Signed, sealed, delivered, but am I yours? Apparently not, according to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, at least in the context of allowed administrative expense claims under Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code.1 The Third Circuit recently considered and ruled in a case as to when goods are deemed “received” for the purposes of determining whether a creditor may recover the value of the goods as an allowed administrative expense claim under the Bankruptcy Code.