This briefing is the first in a series of 3 briefings about the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 which we will be publishing over the next fortnight.
The pros and cons every claims professional needs to know – part 1
Brexit Overview
Legal implications of the UK withdrawal from the EU
There is no precedent for a member state leaving the EU and we can expect slow progress to be made in relation to our exit and the conclusion of alternative trade deals, with estimates for the timescale ranging from two to 10 years. However long it takes, we can be sure that complex negotiations will be required.
English insolvency and restructuring law and procedures are significant at both the European and world level. In recent times lenders, debtors and many others have sought to take advantage of the varied, flexible and fair procedures available in our jurisdiction.
In the event of bankruptcy, creditors are entitled to disclosure of the bookkeeping of the estate under certain conditions. In its decision dated 8 April 2016 (ECLI:NL:HR:2016:612), the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that this right is limited and depends on the purpose of the disclosure. Creditors are not entitled to disclosure if the purpose is to retrieve information to support their claim against a third party.
Introduction
In the first 3 months of this year, company insolvencies increased for the first time since 2014. In April, UK manufacturing activity contracted for the first time in 3 years.1 A range of explanations has been offered including
weaker domestic demand, low oil prices hitting production and uncertainty created by the EU referendum. It the circumstances, it seems timely to look at one of the remedies that can be available to manufacturers and suppliers in the event of a customer failing to pay for goods.
Al sinds 2004 schrijft de MiFID richtlijn voor dat dat beleggingsondernemingen financiële instrumenten (waaronder verhandelbare derivaten) veilig en bankruptcy remote moeten aanhouden voor hun cliënten. In 2005 bleek waarom: bij het faillissement van Van der Hoop Bankiers bleek dat beleggers geen aanspraak meer hadden op hun derivaten, maar concurrent schuldeiser van de bank waren geworden.
De Minister van Justitie beloofde daarop met wettelijke bescherming te komen. Die is er nu.
Geen afgescheiden vermogen
Commercial Litigation
When can you be deprived of costs where you better your Part 36 offer?
In a recent judgment, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that in the event of a bankruptcy whereby the bankruptcy receiver has wrongfully collected receivables which were pledged to a secured creditor and the total value of the assets of the bankrupt estate was insufficient to pay all debts, the bankruptcy receiver was allowed to recover its salary from the proceeds of that wrongful collection with priority over the claim of that secured creditor.
On 5 February 2016, the Dutch Supreme Court (“Supreme Court“) ruled (ECLI:NL:HR:2016:199) that an estate claim (boedelvordering) based on damage suffered by a pledge holder, caused by the wrongful collection of claims encumbered by a right of pledge by a bankruptcy trustee, does not have priority over the estate claim relating to the remuneration of the trustee.