The 2010 Act has now been updated by regulations (the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2016) to reflect changes in insolvency law. Accordingly, the long-awaited 2010 Act will finally come into force on 1 August 2016.
It will be recalled that the 2010 Act is intended to make it easier for third party claimants to bring direct actions against (re)insurers where an insured has become insolvent. The key changes coming in are as follows:
Overview
The IMF, in a January 2016 update to its World Economic Outlook, revised its global growth projections for 2016 and 2017 down by 0.2%, citing a decline in emerging markets' growth and lower prices for energy and other commodities.[1]
With the trough in the global economy set to continue, there is unlikely to be any respite for the marine and trade industries, where counterparty insolvency will become more prevalent.
The Western Cape High Court[1] has recently passed judgment in a decision which reiterates the bounds of the duties of directors of holding companies to subsidiary companies. Even though the case involved a damages claim against the liquidators of the holding company (in liquidation), the principle applies equally to directors.
Last year, the Ministry of Justice published its statistics for judicial and court activity in England and Wales for 2014. In this note, we take a look at the 2014 figures and highlight emerging litigation trends.
Our own enquiries into professional negligence claims for the first three quarters of 2015 show that claims numbers are likely to be broadly similar to those for 2014 and 2013. We intend to follow this note with an update after the Ministry of Justice publishes its own figures for the whole of 2015 later this year.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2015/3721.html
Two insurance intermediaries entered into administration. Although heavily insolvent, they had significant funds held in client accounts. Those funds represented insurance premiums collected from customers but not yet paid on to the insurers. The issue therefore arose as to whether the insurers, the customers or the unsecured creditors of the intermediaries were entitled to those funds.
Liquidators may often consider it necessary to bring proceedings on behalf of the insolvent company to seek to recover assets or obtain compensation on the company’s behalf. If that action fails, and the insolvent company does not have the funds to meet any costs order made against it, the liquidator is potentially personally exposed to paying those costs pursuant to a non-party costs order. This could operate harshly for liquidators. Every piece of litigation has a winner and a loser.
Until now the 1981 English case of The Halcyon Isle has been the principle authority on maritime liens and conflict of laws in Anglo-Common law jurisdictions. In that case, which was on appeal from the Singapore courts, the majority of the Privy Council held that the recognition and enforcement of maritime liens were to be determined according to the law of the forum in which the proceedings were commenced (i.e. the lex fori).
In a judgment dated 26 / 03 / 2015, ref. no. IX ZR 302 / 13, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) held that a provisional insolvency administrator is personally liable for monies paid into the escrow account in the event of claims of unjust enrichment being made due to the payments having no proper basis in law.
The ruling related to the following situation:
Mit Urteil vom 26. März 2015, AZ IX ZR 302 / 13, entschied der BGH, dass ein vorläufiger Insolvenzver- walter für Zahlungen auf das Voll- rechtstreuhandkonto persönlich haf- tet, wenn Bereicherungsansprüche wegen rechtsgrundloser Zahlungen geltend gemacht werden.
Dieser Entscheidung lag folgender Sachverhalt zu Grunde: